IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15697 of 2008 Between: S.R Constructions Tanuku Rep.by its Managing Partner Katuri Lakshmana Rao S/o.K.V.R.K.Prasad Chowdary Tanuku.W.G Distrit ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P Revenue(L.A) Department rep.by its Principal Secretary Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad 2 The Collector W.G District Eluru 3 Land Acquisition Officer cum-Revenue Divisional Officer Kovvur W.G District 4 The Tahsildar Tanuku(M) Tanuku,W.G District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing Notification Ref No.G4/3729/2008 (Gel) Dt.6-6-08 under Sec4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the property of the petitioner in an extent of 0.65 sq.yards with Door No.22-19-8 of R.P Road Tanuku West Godavari District and the Declaration under Sec 6 of the Act as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition act and set-aside the same consequently directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner from the said lands and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15697 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner which is a partnership ﬁrm carrying on business in developing lands and construction of buildings, claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 897 square yards in R.S.No.18 of Tanuku, West Godavari District, having acquired the same under the registered documents, dated 20.11.2004 and 18.11.2004. While so, a notiﬁcation dated 06.06.2008 was published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) acquiring 65 square yards out of the land belonging to the petitioner together with structures standing thereon for a public purpose namely formation of approach to the proposed railway over bridge at Tanuku on Sajjapuram side. Having invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with and consequently the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also made on 26.07.2008. The said notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 06.06.2008 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 27.06.2008 are under challenge in this writ petition primarily on the ground that the invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act is arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v MUKESH HANS[1] and HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD v DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND OTHERS[2] vehemently contended that since there is no such imminent urgency so as to take away the right conferred on the persons interested to submit their objections to the acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act, the impugned notiﬁcation as well as the declaration are liable to be set aside directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings. A perusal of the impugned notiﬁcation dated 06.06.2008 shows that the proposed acquisition is for the purpose of formation of approach to the proposed railway over bridge at Tanuku. It is apparent that the purpose for which the notiﬁcation is published is a public purpose and the same has not been disputed by the petitioner. It is true that Section 5- A of the Act confers right on the person whose land is sought to be acquired to raise his objections to the acquisition. However, when the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is not in dispute and there is no allegation of any mala ﬁdies much less in the absence of violation of any of the statutory conditions for acquisition, the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Act warrants no interference by this Court. Since under law, there is a presumption of regularity of oﬃcial acts, the mere allegation that the Government failed to apply its mind to the question of urgency, cannot be a ground warranting interference by this Court. Hence, I am unable to hold that the action of the respondents in invoking the urgency clause is without any valid reason and without application of mind. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ 23-07-2008 kvrm [1] (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 14 [2] (2005)7 Supreme Court Cases 627