JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioners have challenged the validity of certain proceeding commenced under the U.P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a variety of grounds. 2. The first ground urged in support of this petition was that petitioners were not served with a notice as contemplated under the Act to show cause against the proposed action of the Government to requisition the land in question. This submission has no merit. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been asserted that notices had been duly issued as required under the Act. Further we find that the petitioners have themselves filed an objection, a true copy of which been annexed to the petition as Annexure I. The petitioners were hence not prejudiced in any case on account of the alleged non-issuance of notice. Thus in either view of the matter, there is no substance in the first point. 3. The second point urged in support of this petition was that the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to substantiate their objections. It was urged that an application was made by the petitioners for making a local inspection under Section 5 (2) of the Act but that application was illegally rejected by the Tehsildar. This submission again has no merit. Section 5 (2) of the Act vests a discretion in the Requisitioning Authority to enter any land and inspect it for the purpose of determining whether and, if so, is what manner, an order under Section 3 shall be made in relation to such land. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the Tehsildar relied on the reports submitted by technical experts on the desirability of requisitioning the site for the purpose of making provision for adequate drainage in the area and he did not consider it necessary, having regard to the opinion expressed by the experts, to make a local inspection of the land. Under Section 5 (2) the Requisitioning Authority is not obliged in each case to make a local inspection. 4. The third contention was that the Tehsildar was not competent to act as the Requisitioning Authority under the Act. Under Section 5 (2) the Requisitioning Authority is not obliged in each case to make a local inspection. 4. The third contention was that the Tehsildar was not competent to act as the Requisitioning Authority under the Act. A complete answer to this argument is provided by Annexure C.A. - III filed with the counter-affidavit which is a notification issued under clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act whereby all the Tehsildars exercising the powers of Assistant Collectors were authorised to act as Requisitioning Authority within their respective tehsils under the Act. 5. Lastly, an attempt was made to urge that the decision of the Requisitioning Authority to requisition the land in question was not justified. In support learned counsel placed reliance on the assertions made in paragraph 11 of the petition in which it is alleged that the pradhan of the village was examined by the petitioner and he categorically deposed in his statement that the existing Nala was sufficient and there was no need for any other Nala. These assertions have been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. In any case, this is not a matter in which this Court can enter under Article 226 of the Constitution, it not having been established that the decision taken by the Requisitioning Authority was either arbitrary or otherwise unsustainable in law. 6. No other point was urged in support of this petition. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim order is hereby vacated.