THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A.No.1530 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 08.09.2008, passed by a learned single judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.7260 of 2007. 3. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. 4. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal, are that the appellant is owner of land to an extent of 243.81 square yards on the road leading from Charminar to Falakunuma; that, on 06.03.2007, the respondent - authorities have issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”), and the same was published for acquiring an extent of 35-89 square yards of land out of the total extent of 243.81 square yards of the appellant; that Section 17 (4) was also invoked in view of the urgency and that the authorities found that all others in that streak of the road have surrendered their lands, except the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the actual extent sought to be acquired is more than the land that was shown in the notification and that the same is not in accordance with the entries in the town survey records. Therefore, his submission is that since the ground realities are not properly projected, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was required to be conducted. 6. In the counter-affidavit, filed by the second respondent- the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, in the writ petition, it was stated that draft notification and draft declaration were published in the Gazette on 06.03.2007 and 07.03.2007 as well as in the local newspapers, duly dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that urgency clause has been invoked since the properties are required urgently as most of the stretch of the road has already been widened and stretch where the property in question is situated is a bottleneck. 7. The learned single judge has pointed out that when everything had been done in accordance with law, there cannot be any right for the appellant to challenge the said acquisition and there was no allegation as regards any violation of the statutory requirements and in the absence of any such specific allegation, the settled principle of law is that there is a presumption of regularity of official acts and that mere denial that the Government had not formed an opinion as to the urgency or the allegation that the Government did not apply its mind to the question of urgency, cannot be a ground warranting interference by this Court. 8. In view of the facts stated above, we confirm the view taken by the learned single judge, while dismissing the writ petition. 9. For the foregoing, the Writ Appeal is lack of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________​___ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 AVS/LSK