ORDER K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the acquisition proceedings for the purpose of locating the office of the Assistant Engineer, Madras Telephones in the premises belonging to the petitioners. 2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of this petition that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, Part II, Section II, dated 1-10-1986 in respect of the petitioners' land for the purpose of installing an Electronic Exchange by Madras Telephones. On 9-6-1987, an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was also conducted. It is further seen that in spite of the petitioners' objection to the acquisition of their property, the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1900 Public (Telephones II) Department, dated 19-11-1987, declared that the land belonging to the petitioners was needed for a public purpose by the Telephone Department. After the receipt of notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, the petitioners caused an enquiry to be conducted regarding Section 6 declaration. It seems that the petitioner also came to know that Section 6 declaration was already published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 19-11-1987. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have come before this court, challenging the land acquisition proceedings. 3. It is stated in the affidavit that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act as published in the Government Gazette dated 19-11-1987 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. It is also stated in the affidavit that under the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, declaration under Section 5 should be given before the expiry of one year from the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification. It is further stated in the affidavit that the first petitioner is contemplating to locate an Electronic factory in the premises, that Madras Telephones has already located the Electronic Exchange in Haddows Road, Madras and that should be sufficient to meet the needs of the locality. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is absolutely no necessity to locate the Electronic Exchange so close to the existing Electronic Exchange in Haddows Road, Madras. 4. When this writ petition came up for admission, notice of motion has been ordered by me on 26-10-1989. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is absolutely no necessity to locate the Electronic Exchange so close to the existing Electronic Exchange in Haddows Road, Madras. 4. When this writ petition came up for admission, notice of motion has been ordered by me on 26-10-1989. One common counter affidavit on behalf of first and second respondents and another counter affidavit on behalf of the third respondent have been filed. Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanlham, learned Additional Government Pleader appears for first and second respondents and Mr. R. Jamal Nazccm appears for third respondent. 5. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of first and second respondents that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 1-10-1986 and that the Government has also approved the Draft Declaration and published in the Gazette on 19-11-1987, in respect of the property measuring 9 grounds and 1002 sq. ft. in R.S. No. 1625/2 of Egmore Village in Montieth Road. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the substance of the said notification was published in the locality on 21-11-1986. It is further suited in the counter affidavit that the draft declaration is valid since it was published within one year from the date of publication of the substance of 4(1) notification in the locality. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was also published in the two local dailies viz., one in 'News To-day' on 9-10-1986 and another in 'Makkal Kural' on 10-10-1986. An enquiry under Section 5(A) of the Act was also conducted. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the notice dated 28-11-1986 was published in the public offices and locality on 4-12-1986 and was also served on the land owners also. After considering all the aspects, all the objections of the owner as of the premises were over-ruled and orders were passed on the 5-A enquiry on 9-6-1987. The Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1990 Public (Telephones II) Department, dated 19-11-1987 also approved the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published the declaration in the Gazette on 19-11-1987. After considering all the aspects, all the objections of the owner as of the premises were over-ruled and orders were passed on the 5-A enquiry on 9-6-1987. The Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1990 Public (Telephones II) Department, dated 19-11-1987 also approved the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act and published the declaration in the Gazette on 19-11-1987. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that an Award has also been passed on 17-11-1989, after observing the required formalities, that the Government has carefully considered and examined all the aspects and then ordered for the location of Electronic Exchange of Madras Telephones, which is for a public purpose, that public interest is more important than individual's interest, that the Gazette publication of the Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was on 19-11-1987, which is clearly within the period of one year, that the premises is needed for accommodating Electronic Exchange and that the delivery of possession of the building is urgently required to carry out further development. 6. In the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the third respondent, it is stated that in view of large number of multislorcycd buildings that have come up in and around the locality, there is a huge increase in the telephone demand and that to meet the ever growing demand, the Collector of Madras has been requested to acquire this property for the construction of Telephone Exchange building. It is further stated that it is also very essential to have the Telephone exchange located in a particular area where, the telephone density is high, that after considering all the aspects, the site acquired is the one best suited for Telephone Exchange and further, no other suitable site is available in the nearby area. With regard to the allegation of the distance between the petition premises and the other Electronic Exchange in the same locality, it is replied in the counter that the distance is not a criterion for locating a Telephone Exchange but only the Telephone density is the deciding factor in that particular area and that to meet the ever growing demand in and around this property, the acquisition of this property for locating a Telephone Exchange is very necessary. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Sridar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is not able to controvert the case of the Respondents regarding the acquisition proceedings, in view of the categorical statements made in the counter affidavit and in the records that were produced before me. As such, I do not find any substance in his contention that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of 4(1) notification. It is very clear from Section 4(1) of the Act, which reads as follows: ...that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, (and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language) and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality, (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the publication) (Emphasis is mine). Further, it is well settled that this court cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the authorities about the necessity of acquiring the property and it is for the Government to decide the same. The property in question is needed for locating an Electronic Exchange and the necessity for such location in that area is also there. 8. As such, there are no merits in this writ petition. This writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.