AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioners are the appellants in this writ appeal. We have perused the impugned judgment dated 15-11-2001 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition and the entire pleadings and also the annexures filed along with the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the 4 (1) Gazette Notification dated 23-11-1991 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar acquiring the lands of the writ petitioners in an extent of Ac. 1-37 guntas in Sy. Nos. 623/1 and 624/a, B situated at Karimnagar Village, Mandal and District and all further proceedings taken pursuant to the said Notification as illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) IT was contended before the learned single Judge that Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was published simultaneously and that no proper procedure was followed for the whole acquisition proceedings as contemplated under Chapter 47 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge, however, found on facts that Notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the A. P. Gazette on 20-11-1991 whereas Declaration under Section 6 (1) was published on 21-11-1991. And relying on the decision reported in Mohan Singh v. International A Airport Authority of India, (1997) 9 SCC 132 , the learned Judge held that the gap of even one day is sufficient to validate the Land Acquisition proceedings. The second ground that no proper procedure has been followed for the acquisition proceedings was also not found favour with the learned Judge who, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present writ appeal is preferred. ( 5 ) MR. S. Lakshma Reddy, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants vehemently argued that acquiring of land by a Government owned Corporation so as to distribute the" land in favour of a group of private individuals cannot answer the description public purpose as defined in the Act and the whole acquisition proceedings are a colourable exercise of power. He also contended that no proper procedure as contemplated under Sections 3 (f) and 4 read with Section 43 of the Act was followed. He also contended that no proper procedure as contemplated under Sections 3 (f) and 4 read with Section 43 of the Act was followed. ( 6 ) THE Notification under Section 4 (1) by which the acquisition proceedings were initiated has not been filed. However, the notice issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act is filed. In the said notice it is clearly mentioned that the State Government has proposed to acquire the lands in question that are required for public purpose as defined under the Act. The land owners were, therefore, requested to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar in person or by authorised agent on 23-1-1992 at 10-30 a. m. , to slate/put in a statement in writing signed by themselves or their agents showing the nature of their interest in the lands, the amount of compensation claimed for such interest with particulars thereof and objections, if any, to the measurements made under Section 8 of the Act. ( 7 ) A perusal of the counter-affidavit and the records filed in this case would clearly show that steps were taken by the Government to acquire the land in question by invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act. The Collector. Karimnagar approved the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and Draft Declaration under Section 6 and they were published in the A. P. Gazette dated 20-11-1991 and 21-11-1991 respectively. The substance of the Section 4 (1) Notification was published in the locality and at other conspicuous places as required by law on 6-12-1991. The Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) and Draft Declaration under Section 6 were published in two dailies viz. , Deccan Chronicle dated 2-12-1991 and Eenadu dated 6-12-1991. Notices in Form 6 under Sections 9 (1) and 10 and Form-10 of the Act were issued on 23-11-1991. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar was directed to serve the notices on the concerned pattedars immediately and take possession of the lands after allowing 15 days clear interval. Notices in Form-7 under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act were issued on 18-1-1992 to all the interested persons informing them to attend the award enquiry on 23-1-1992. Notices in the instant case were served on Writ Petitioners 2. 3 and 4. Notices in Form-7 under Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Act were issued on 18-1-1992 to all the interested persons informing them to attend the award enquiry on 23-1-1992. Notices in the instant case were served on Writ Petitioners 2. 3 and 4. The 1st petitioner P. Anjaiah did not receive it- So his notice was affixed on 22-1-1992 to Door No. 1-3-1. which is his residence. In the award enquiry the petitioners submitted a written statement claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000. 00 per gunta and an amount of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 for the well. ( 8 ) IT is seen from the records that the lands in question are acquired on the requisition made by the A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking. It is not disputed that the said Corporation is registered under the Companies Act and that it is a Corporation owned by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Possession of the land under acquisition was already taken by the Government and the same was in turn handed over to the requisitioning authority i. e. , APIIC Limited. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the lands are acquired by the APIIC for establishment of an industrial estate, which is a public purpose. ( 9 ) A separate counter-affidavit was filed by the APIIC which is impleaded as 3rd respondent by order dated 3-8-1994 of this Court. According to the Corporation, it has sent a requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar on 7-9-1991 for acquisition of an extent of Ac. 19-07 guntas. On a survey of the land conducted by the Revenue authorities the exact area as per division was found to be Ac. 17-20 guntas only for which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar wanted a fresh requisition to be sent. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar wanted a fresh requisition to be sent. Accordingly a fresh requisition was sent on 7-11-1991 for acquisition. It is also stated that the Corporation has deposited a sum of Rs. 19. 00 lakhs with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar and that on instruction from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Karimnagar, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, handed over the total extent of Ac. 17-20 guntas to the Assistant Regional Manager, APIIC, Karimnagar on 4-1-1992 itself and an Award also was passed in respect of Ac. 19. 00 lakhs with the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar and that on instruction from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Karimnagar, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition, handed over the total extent of Ac. 17-20 guntas to the Assistant Regional Manager, APIIC, Karimnagar on 4-1-1992 itself and an Award also was passed in respect of Ac. 15-23 guntas leaving the extent of Ac. 1-37 guntas covered by the order of stay passed by this Court. However, the lands have been in possession of the Corporation since 4-1-1992. According to the Corporation, the extent of Ac. 1-37 guntas is essentially required by the corporation since the same is situated at the very entrance of the remaining extent of Ac. 15-23 guntas. The public purpose for which the land is acquired namely, establishment of Autonagar will be frustrated if the extent of Ac. 1-37 guntas is excluded from acquisition. As already noticed, the amount of compensation payable to the pattedars has already been deposited with the concerned authorities. Because of the pendency of the writ petition, it is stated that the authorities could not take up the development work. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant disputed the public purpose in the present case. The expression public purpose includes the provision of planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned. As already seen in the instant case, the land was sought to be acquired for the planned development, which, in our opinion, is a public purpose . The proceedings were initiated by the District Collector who is the competent authority to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings. It is also seen from the records that all the land owners have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000. 00 per gunta and that the owners of the major extent of Ac. 15-23 guntas have consented to part with their lands and that the petitioners land alone in an extent Ac. 1-37 guntas which is adjacent to the major extent of the land could not be secured because of the pendency of the writ petition. 5,000. 00 per gunta and that the owners of the major extent of Ac. 15-23 guntas have consented to part with their lands and that the petitioners land alone in an extent Ac. 1-37 guntas which is adjacent to the major extent of the land could not be secured because of the pendency of the writ petition. ( 11 ) COMING to the next contention of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners-Appellants that proper procedure as contemplated under the Act has not been followed by the authorities for the acquisition in question, a perusal of the counter-affidavits and the entire records filed in this case would clearly show that the Respondent-Authorities have scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 12 ) IN our opinion there is no merit in this writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.