Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a co-operative Society formed by the Railway employees, which was registered on 1. 1995 with a specific object of providing house sites to its members by acquiring lands and constructing houses thereon. The lands were purchased by the society and a lay out was prepared, which was approved by the Commissioner of Town Panchayat, Kasiapalayam in proceedings No.1484 of 89, dated 12. 1990. According to the petitioners, the construction work begun in April, 1990 and was nearing completion, when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published by the Government in May, 1991. Though the name of the petitioner society was not found in the said notification, the Society on coming to know of the acquisition proceedings filed its objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Several objections were raised by the Society and the same were forwarded to the requisitioning body, who replied with their remarks on the objections. An oral enquiry was held by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13. 1992. An Officer of the petitioner society appeared at the enquiry and gave a statement. The requisitioning body was also represented by the appropriate Officer at the enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on 23. 1992 setting out the objections raised by the petitioner and the remarks made by the requisitioning body and the reply thereto. One of the remarks made by the requisitioning body was that the petitioner’s lands are situated at the entrance of the scheme area of the property and if they are excluded it will affect the entrance. After referring to the objections and the remarks in detail, the Land Acquisition Officer stated in the last paragraph of the proceedings, dated 13. 1992 that he had carefully considered the objections and the remarks and he accepted the remarks of the requisitioning body, while rejecting the objections made by the petitioner. Apart from the said statement, the Land Acquisition Officer has not chosen to give any reason whatever for rejecting the objections of the writ petitioner, or accepting the remarks of the requisitioning body. Apart from the said statement, the Land Acquisition Officer has not chosen to give any reason whatever for rejecting the objections of the writ petitioner, or accepting the remarks of the requisitioning body. The Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the issue whether the lands of the petitioner should be exclused in such a manner that it will not affect the scheme of the Housing Board as such as whether the entrance to the scheme area could be shifted a little further, so that the lands of the petitioner purchased by the Society on behalf of the various employees of the Railway could be saved. 2. The Government has accepted the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Officer and issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the year 1992. The petitioner has raised an objection in this Writ petition that the lands should not have been acquired by the Government, in view of the fact that the society has purchased the same with a view to construct houses for the poor employees of the Southern Railway, who are its members. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghazibad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Td. v. State of U.P., AIR 1990 SC 645 by learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case some of the co-operative Societies with membership of Government servants mostly of the lower strata had acquired lands with a view to provide housing accommodation for its members. The validity of the acquisition proceedings was challenged. The Supreme Court found that an extent of 22 acres of land could conveniently be deleted from the acquisition proceedings and released in favour of the co-operative societies, so that they could be utilised by the members of the societies for their residential accommodation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case also, the lands belonging to the petitioner society may be conveniently excluded from the acquisition proceedings, so that the scheme of the Housing Board will not be affected in any manner thereby. We find that the said objection has not been considered by the land Acquisition Officer or by the Government. In the circumstances, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is vitiated and consequently, the declaration issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.307 (Housing and Urban Development), dated 8th June, 1992 is quashed. We find that the said objection has not been considered by the land Acquisition Officer or by the Government. In the circumstances, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is vitiated and consequently, the declaration issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.307 (Housing and Urban Development), dated 8th June, 1992 is quashed. The second respondent is directed to hold a fresh enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, by providing reasonable opportunity to both parties (Petitioner and the requisitioning body) so as to enable them to put forward their respective contentions in the enquiry. The second respondent shall also consider and decide whether the lands of the petitioner could be conveniently excluded from the acquisition proceedings without affecting the scheme framed by the Housing Board and in which case, the entrance to the scheme area could be shifted a little further. 3. With the above direction, this writ petition shall stand partly allowed to the extent of quashing G.O.Ms.No.307 (Housing and Urban Development), 8th June, 1992. There will be no order as to costs.