THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19576 of 2008 Date:26.04.2011 Between: M/s.Sri Vijayalakshmi Sago Factory ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Kakinada and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the notification dated 10.06.2008 issued under Section 4(1) and draft declaration dated 25.08.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is a firm running a sago factory at Rayabhupalapatnam Village, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. Adjacent to the factory premises, it has purchased an extent of Acs.3.82 cents of land under registered sale deed dated 24.03.2008. Within less than a couple of months of purchase of the said property, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 10.06.2008 proposing to acquire a total extent of land admeasuring Acs.8.33 ½ cents in various survey numbers including the extent of Acs.3.11 cents purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of providing house sites to the houseless persons under Indiramma scheme. In pursuance of the notice calling for objections, the petitioner and other owners have filed their objections. The main objection raised by the petitioner to the proposed acquisition is that it has purchased the land for extension of their factory and to store waste water released from their factory and that if the said land is acquired, the petitioner will be deprived of the land purchased for the said purpose. It is also stated that a bore- well with a shed worth Rs.6,00,000/- is existing in the said land. The said objections among other objections filed by the other owners were rejected by respondent No.1. A perusal of the order dated 18.08.2008 rejecting the objections shows that respondent No.1 has reasoned that sago factories are existing for a long time, but they have never proposed to use the lands for storing waste water; that knowing about the proposal for acquisition of lands, the petitioner has purchased the land and that the enquiries revealed that the vendor of the land is the relative of the persons in management of the factory. At the hearing, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the notice in letter No.Sago-9/PCB/RO- KKD/2008-391 dated 21.02.2008 of the Environmental Engineer of Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, kakinada, addressed to the petitioner, wherein it is stated that the latter is operating the industry with various violations which include absence of effluent treatment plant (ETP) and the petitioner was called upon to submit compliance of the deficiencies pointed out in the notice within seven days of receipt of the same. The learned counsel further submitted that in order to make good the deficiencies pointed out in the said notice, the petitioner has purchased the extent of Acs.3.11 cents under registered sale deed 24.03.2008 with a view to establish ETP for treating the waste water discharged from the petitioner factory. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that this aspect was not properly considered by respondent No.1. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has strongly opposed the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioner has manipulated the notice from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. It is also not their case that by the time the said notice was issued, the acquisition proposals were initiated. Even though respondent No.1 has observed that after the lands were inspected by the revenue officials, the petitioner has purchased the property, the undeniable fact still remains that the petitioner is called upon to establish ETP before the land acquisition proceedings were initiated. While the respondents certainly have the power of eminent domain, by using such power they cannot cause undue hardship to the owners of the lands. In my opinion, the disadvantage which the petitioner may suffer due to acquisition would far too outweigh the advantage that the beneficiaries may gain. It is not the case of the respondents that even if the land of the petitioner is acquired, it is left with any other land for complying with the statutory obligation of establishment of the ETP. On the premises as above, I do not find any justification whatsoever to deny the petitioner of the land which is intended for establishment of ETP. Therefore, the impugned acquisition proceedings are quashed in so far as the land admeasuring Acs.3.11 cents belonging to the petitioner is concerned. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 09.09.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.25545 of 2008 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.25545 of 2008 and W.V.M.P.No.2274 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th April, 2011 GHN