THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1867 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are residents of Dhone town. They feel aggrieved by the proceedings dated 14-12-2010, issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). The railway lines pass through the town. As of now, a level crossing exists for crossing the railway line. Realizing the difficulty caused on account of the closure of gates and the resultant traffic jams, the State Government, in consultation with the Railways, proposed the construction of rail over bridge. This in turn required the construction of a bypass road, to maintain the gradual levels and to avoid demolition to the extent possible. After fixing the alignment, respondents issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 19- 05-2010. The grievance of the petitioners is that the newly proposed road would result in serious hardship, particularly to the persons, who intend to go to the Government hospital or to take the dead bodies to the burial ground. In the course of enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners raised all these objections. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, the 2nd respondent herein conducted enquiry and submitted the gist thereof to the District Collector, the 1st respondent. A detailed order was passed on 14-12-2010 by the 1st respondent, dealing with every objection. It was ultimately observed that it is not feasible to change the alignment, as suggested by the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the respondents did not take into account, the various objections submitted by them in the correct perspective, and the hardship, being caused to the residents of the town. Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and learned Standing Counsel for the South Central Railways, the 3rd respondent herein. Whenever Rail Over Bridge (ROB) is to be constructed, the approach road, connecting the bridge, is to be constructed on both sides, fairly for a very long distance, in a gradually elevated manner. Though it may be possible to construct the approach road with the same alignment, as the old road existed, in cases where it passes through a non-residential locality, it is almost impossible to undertake such a work in the middle of the towns or cities. Naturally connecting roads have to be shifted to a different place, to avoid inconvenience to the residents on either side of the existing road. The respondents 1 and 2 have taken all possible measures to ensure that, least inconvenience is caused to the users of the road. Keeping in view the hardship being expressed by the petitioners, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent to verify, whether it would be possible to continue the level crossings, even after the bypass road is constructed. It is stated that continuance of level crossing is not feasible, at all. As long as that decision holds good, this Court cannot require them to continue the level crossing, even after the construction of ROB. It is for the concerned public representatives to impress upon the authorities of the Railways, to continue the level crossing, and for the latter to take a decision. No serious infirmity is pointed out in the order passed by the 1st respondent. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-03-2011. KO