JUDGMENT The State Government and its authorities being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-12-2003 in Writ Petition No. 40926 of2001, have preferred this writ appeal. 2. In the above writ petition, the first respondent herein, who is the owner of the subject land acquired for a public purpose, complained that there was no necessity to invoke urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short). 3. The learned Single Judge though accepted the above contention as justified, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the land is acquired for laying ring road and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to quash the land acquisition proceedings. Having so opined and while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, however, directed the State Government to pay interest to first respondent at the rate of W}() per annum in addition to the compensation payable to him. Being aggrieved by the above direction of the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. The Act is a Code in itself with regard to the legal remedies that may be availed by the owners of the acquired lands. It is well-settled that an owner of an acquired land is entitled to compensation in terms of the market value of such land as on the date of Section 4(1) notification. If the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate or unreasonable and not acceptable to the owner of the acquired land, he can work out his legal remedies as provided under the Act by seeking reference to Civil Court and appeals to this Court and Supreme Court. The Act does not envisage the kind of payment of interest as directed by the learned Single Judge. Simply because, in the opinion of the Court there was no warrant to invoke the urgency clause dispensing with the enquiry envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act, that circumstances itself without anything further would not entitled the owner of the land to claim interest at the rate of 6% in addition to the compensation payable to him under the act. 5. 5. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in ease of Union of India v Praveen Gupta, has opined that the State Government need not state reasons in the Notification which prompted it to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. It was also held by the Supreme Court that the decision to invoke the urgency clause is an administrative decision and the matter of subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government and such satisfaction cannot be upset unless it is proved mala fide. The acquisition of the land for public purpose like widening or laying a ring road, it cannot be said, does not involve urgency. 6. Be that as it may, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the opinion of the State, which is vested with eminent domain power to acquire lands for public purposes. It is not the case of the first respondent that the action of the State impugned in the writ petition, is mala fide and or for extraneous considerations. Looking from any angle, there is no good reason for the Court to condemn the action of the State in invoking the urgency clause as bad or illegal. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to pay interest at the rate of 6% PA. In addition to the compensation payable to him in terms of the Act, therefore, cannot be sustained. A case is made out for our interference. 7. The writ appeal is allowed. The order of learned Single Judge insofar as it directs payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded in favour of first respondent land owner, from the date of taking possession, is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.