DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed to call for the records connected with the G. O. Rt. No. 770, panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PRDGS. IV) Department, dated 10-5-2002 and the Declaration in Government Memo no. 3682/2001-18 P. R. and R. D. (Prog. IV/a2) Department dated 10-5-2002 passed by the Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, hyderabad. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition originally came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this court. Before the learned Single Judge (Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar) a decision of another learned Single Judge (Ms. Justice s. V. Maruthi) of this court reported in coverdhanlal Pitti v. The State of A. P. was cited. In the said decision the learned Single judge held that exercise of power under the land Acquisition Act, to defeat the decree of a Civil Court would be an act vitiated by malice in law. Differing with the above decision, a reference was made by the learned Single Judge to a Division Bench. Accordingly this writ petition came up for hearing before this court as per the directions of the Hon ble the Chief Justice. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioner was the absolute owner of the land comprising of Ac. 1-21 cents of land in Sy. No. 728 of Nuzvid village and Mandal. Admittedly long back permissive possession was given to the respondents for use and occupation of the said property. Zilla Parishad constructed some buildings also in the said property. The buildings are used for Zilla Parishad offices, guest house, godowns, garages for parking vehicles, etc. The petitioner filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 7 of 1980 on the file of senior Civil Judge at Gudivada, for declaration of her title and for vacant possession of the said property by evicting the defendants. Zilla Parishad contested the suit claiming title by adverse possession also. Later the suit was transferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge at Nuzvid and renumbered as O. S. No. 30 of 1984. The district Collector and other Government officers are parties to the said civil suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. It was confirmed by a learned Single Judge of this court in appeal and later in lpa. No. 216 of 2000 on the file of this court. The district Collector and other Government officers are parties to the said civil suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. It was confirmed by a learned Single Judge of this court in appeal and later in lpa. No. 216 of 2000 on the file of this court. The Government preferred Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court. It was dismissed on 16-3-2001. Later the government issued a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G. O. Rt. No. 770, dated 10-5-2002 of panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PRDGS - IV) Department. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also published by the Government in government Memo No. 3682/2001 -18, panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Prog. IVA2) Department, dated 10-5-1992. Award was also passed by Land Acquisition officer. It appears that a reference to a civil court was made regarding quantum of compensation. As per the notifications the acquired property is needed for a public purpose and to safeguard the Zilla Parishad, krishna and properties of Nuzvid Mandal. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that to nullify the decrees of the Civil Court, those two notifications were given by the state, it is colourable and mala fide exercise of power and those notifications are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) BEFORE considering the above aspect, it is necessary to consider the decision of this court reported in Goverdhanlal Pitti v. The state of A. P. (supra ). In that case the landlord leased out a building to the government for the purpose of establishing a School in 1954. Later the landlord initiated eviction proceedings before the Rent controller against the Government. The rent Controller granted eviction orders. The government had to vacate the building and hand over the possession on or before 30-4-1989. Instead of handing over the possession of the building in compliance with the orders of the Court, the government invoked the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 26-4-1989 acquiring the building for public purpose. The said notification was challenged in the said writ petition. Instead of handing over the possession of the building in compliance with the orders of the Court, the government invoked the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 26-4-1989 acquiring the building for public purpose. The said notification was challenged in the said writ petition. Purportedly following a judgment of a division Bench of this Court in w. P. No. 11081 of 1995, W. A. No. 733 of 1995 and C. C. No. 429 of 1995 a learned Single judge of this court held that in view of the decision of the Division Bench it is clear that the notification issued in the present case under Section 4 (1) of the Act is vitiated by malice in law and therefore it is declared as void. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W. P. No. 11081 of 1995, etc. The Division bench, as clear from the judgment itself, rendered the above decision not on merits but as per the amicable settlement reached between the parties and the State in the above case. In view of that amicable settlement, the Division Bench held that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act issued in the said case and consequent proceedings are void. Therefore, the judgment cannot be read as the Division bench declaring that if any property is acquired to get over the orders of a Civil court, automatically the notification is to be treated as vitiated by malice and consequently liable to be quashed. In the above decision, the learned Single Judge noticed an earlier decision of another division Bench reported in G. Dalinaidu v. State of A. P. . The principle of law enunciated in the above decision, as extracted by the learned Single Judge in her judgment, reads as follows:". . . . . . . . THE acquisition has the effect of practically nullifying the decree of the civil Court is no ground for quashing the acquisition notification since the power to acquire is a superior statutory power - what is generally referred to as eminent domain . The acquisition cannot be questioned on the ground of legal malice or legal mala fides, as it is called". The acquisition cannot be questioned on the ground of legal malice or legal mala fides, as it is called". It is thus clear that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge is contra to the principle of law laid down in the above case by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 5 ) THERE is a judgment of the Apex Court quite relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision is reported in Scindia Employees Union v. State of Maharashtra. In that case also the acquisition in question was attacked on the ground that it is not for a public purpose, it is a mala fide acquisition and so it is not valid in law. The Apex Court held that the very object of compulsory acquisition is in exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State against the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land and so long as the public purpose subsists, the exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be questioned. The Apex Court further held that the publication of declaration under Section 6 is conclusive evidence of public interest. It upheld the notification issued in that case. In the present case also the notification issued under Section 6 clearly shows that the acquisition is for a public purpose. Further, from decades the Government is in occupation of the acquired site and it constructed several buildings at its own expenses in the property now acquired. The acquisition is unquestionably for a public purpose. Further, the effect of the Civil court decree is a declaration by a Civil court that the present writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the property concerned. As per the decision of the Civil Court, the title over the property vests in a private person and not in the Government, the State has to acquire necessarily the said property for the purpose of running several offices belonging to the Zilla Parishad and other institutions. Under these circumstances, there is no option for the State but to acquire the land for a public purpose. The said acquisition cannot under any circumstances be termed as an acquisition with malice. We overrule the principle of law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Goverdhanlal pitti s case (supra ). Under these circumstances, there is no option for the State but to acquire the land for a public purpose. The said acquisition cannot under any circumstances be termed as an acquisition with malice. We overrule the principle of law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Goverdhanlal pitti s case (supra ). As the acquisition is for a public purpose, the notifications issued by the State are not liable to be quashed. We find no merits in the writ petition. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.