THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19944 OF 2010 Dated: 17.08.2010 Between: Polla Chinna Veeraiah and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad, A.P. and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19944 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of small extents of lands situated in Vondutla village, Besthavaripeta, Prakasam District. By notification dated 01.09.2009 published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the said lands were sought to be acquired for a public purpose namely for providing house sites to the displaced persons under the Poolasubbaiah Veligonda Project. It is mentioned in the Section 4(1) notification that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with invoking Section 17 (4) of the Act. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 17.09.2009 followed by notice dated 23.06.2010 issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Act calling upon the petitioners to attend the award enquiry. At that stage, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the declaration dated 17.09.2009 made under Section 6 of the Act, is arbitrary and illegal and to set aside the same. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned action in acquiring the lands of the petitioners who are all small farmers is illegal and unwarranted. It is further contended that dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act without there being such urgency amounts to arbitrary exercise of power apart from in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned acquisition proceedings at this stage. As noticed above, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published about an year ago in September 2009 which shall be conclusive evidence that the lands are needed for a public purpose. It is true that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, however the challenge if any on the ground that there was no real urgency for dispensing the enquiry has to be made within a reasonable time, but not when the proceedings are concluding stage. At any rate as no case could be made out to show that the subjective satisfaction formed by the respondents for exercising the power under Section 17 of the Act was malafide or without application of mind to the relevant factors, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 17.08.2010 Ivd