Judgment The petitioners, 10 in number, claim title and possession in respect of different extents of lands situated in Sy.Nos.300/1, 300/3, 318/11, 322/1, 641/2B, 679/4A, 679/4B, 684/2, 684/4, 684/5B, 711/1B and 711/3B of Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification dated 9.2.2009 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) as well as the declaration dated 4.9.2009 made under Section 6 for acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for a public purpose namely formation of Bypass Road to Nunna village from Km 10.600 to Km 16.000 of Vijayawada – Nuzvid road as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Zonal Development Plan and Master Plan prepared by Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (for short, ‘VGTM UDA’) under A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, ‘Urban Areas Development Act’). The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under: The Government of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.695, dated 9.11.1977 issued under Section 13 (1) of the Urban Areas Development Act notified VGTM Urban Area. Pursuant thereto, VGTM UDA prepared Master Plan for VGTM Urban Area and the same was approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.144, M.A. & U.D. Department, dated 3.3.1988 as per Section 9 of the Urban Areas Development Act. Under the approved Master Plan, the area covered by VGTM UDA urban region has been divided into 23 Planning Zones. However Zonal Development Plans have been prepared for 15 zones on priority basis. The Nunna Zone is one among the said 15 zones and it consists of Nunna, Pathapadu, Firyadinainavaram, Ambapuram Revenue villages and Kothuru Reserved Forest Area. The Zonal Development Plan and Zoning Regulations of Nunna Zone were approved by the Government of A.P., vide G.O.Ms.No.676, M.A. & U.D. Department, dated 29.12.2006. As per the approved Zoning Regulations and Zonal Development Plan of Nunna zone, the land use in respect of Nunna zone has been made into seven categories namely residential use zone, commercial use zone, industrial use zone, public and semi-public use zone, agricultural use zone, conservation use zone and recreational use zone. The lands of the petitioners situated in Sy.Nos.300/1 and etc., fall within the agricultural use zone. The approved Master Plan of VGTM UDA provides for a 200 feet Outer Ring Road connecting N.H.5 with N.H.9 via Nunna zone passing through Sy.Nos.736, 708, 784, etc., of Nunna village. The lands of the petitioners situated in Sy.Nos.300/1 and etc., fall within the agricultural use zone. The approved Master Plan of VGTM UDA provides for a 200 feet Outer Ring Road connecting N.H.5 with N.H.9 via Nunna zone passing through Sy.Nos.736, 708, 784, etc., of Nunna village. The Master Plan shows a Government donka poramboke road of 80 feet running from South to North and connecting Vijayawada – Nuzvid road. The said 80 feet road which is under use as public road from time immemorial and forms the Eastern boundary of Nunna Zone running from South to North, cuts across the 200 feet wide Outer Ring Road provided in the Master Plan. While so, pursuant to the representations made by the Sarpanch of Nunna village for formation of a Bypass road stating that the existing road passing through the village is being blocked due to heavy vehicular traffic because of Mango markets, the R & B Department submitted proposals for formation of a Bypass road. In pursuance thereof, the Government of A.P., vide proceedings dated 3.10.2000 granted administrative sanction for formation of the Bypass road through private agencies under Built Operate Transfer (BOT) Scheme. As per the proposals made by the R & B Department, the alignment was fixed from Km 10.600 to Km 16.000 of Vijayawada – Nuzvid road. However, the work could not be taken up as no bidders had come forward. Though it was again notified in the year 2003, only two tenders were received which were rejected as the terms offered by them were not in accordance with the BOT scheme. Thereafter a fresh administrative sanction was granted vide G.O.Rt.No.191, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads.VI), Department, dated 23.2.2007 with Rs.10.50 crores as estimated cost for formation of Bypass road. The Executive Engineer, R & B, Vijayawada submitted the requisition for an extent of Ac.36-57 cents in various survey numbers of Nunna Village for formation of Bypass road. However in view of the availability of an extent of Ac.1.82 cents out of the surplus land resumed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the balance to an extent of Ac.34.83 cents, was proposed to be acquired from patta lands situated in Nunna village. However in view of the availability of an extent of Ac.1.82 cents out of the surplus land resumed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the balance to an extent of Ac.34.83 cents, was proposed to be acquired from patta lands situated in Nunna village. The alignment proposed by the R & B Department for the Bypass road starts at Km 10.600 of Vijayawada – Nuzvid road and passes through the right side of the existing road through the agricultural lands and joins at Km 16.000 of the Vijayawada – Nuzvid road. Having taken note of the fact that the alignment proposed by the R & B Department is not tallying with the alignment of the Outer Ring Road proposed in the approved Master Plan of VGTM UDA and other roads proposed in the approved Zonal Development Plan of Nunna, the Vice-Chairman of VGTM UDA by letter dated 27.4.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Government, R & B Department, suggested that the alignment of the Bypass road may be finalized along the Outer Ring Road proposed by the VGTM UDA upto the Government Donka Poramboke and then take a turn towards North along the Government Donka Poramboke running from South to North and join the Vijayawada – Nuzvid road. A joint meeting was also convened by the District Collector, Krishna, on 19.05.2007 in which the officials of both the VGTM UDA and the R & B Department had participated and after detailed discussions it was suggested by the District Collector that the alignment proposed by VGTM UDA for outer ring road may be followed upto the Eastern boundary of Nunna zone and from that point the Government Donka Poramboke may be utilized till it meets Vijayawada – Nuzvid road so that the requirements of both VGTM UDA and R & B Department would be met. Pursuant to the VGTM UDA’s letter dated 27.4.2007, the Superintending Engineer, R & B, Vijayawada was asked to submit a report after conducting a detailed study on the feasibility of adopting the alignment proposed by the R & B Department (referred to as Alignment No.1) and the alignment proposed by VGTM UDA (referred to as Alignment No.2). Pursuant to the VGTM UDA’s letter dated 27.4.2007, the Superintending Engineer, R & B, Vijayawada was asked to submit a report after conducting a detailed study on the feasibility of adopting the alignment proposed by the R & B Department (referred to as Alignment No.1) and the alignment proposed by VGTM UDA (referred to as Alignment No.2). Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer submitted his report and basing on the same, the Chief Engineer, R & B Department, by letter dated 9.7.2007 requested the Government to permit the R & B Department to take up the Bypass road along the Alignment No.1 stating that the said alignment has the following merits over the alignment No.2: 1. Total length of the road, No. of CD works to be constructed are less with which the cost of Bypass is comparatively less. 2. The curves are less in number, which are necessary in the aspect of Road Safety considerations. 3. Though the land to be acquired in alignment No.1 is more than that of alignment No.2, the alignment No.1 is technically and financially feasible. 4. There is a surplus weir, on alignment No.2 due to which a minor bridge is to be constructed. On the basis of the above said reports/recommendations, the Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Transport, Roads & Buildings (Roads.VI) Department, by memo dated 6.8.2007 granted approval to take up the Bypass road as per the alignment No.1 (alignment proposed by the R & B Department). In pursuance thereof, the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vijayawada submitted proposals vide proceedings dated 23.1.2009 for approval of the draft notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same were approved by the District Collector, Krishna by proceedings dated 31.1.2009. The draft notification under Section 4 (1) was published in the A.P. State Extraordinary Gazette, dated 3.2.2009 and the same was also published in the daily news papers ‘Andhra Jyothi’ and ‘Pledge’ dated 9.2.2009. The substance was published in the locality on 9.2.2009. After conducting the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 8.9.2009 and two daily news papers ‘Andhra Bhoomi’ and ‘Indian Express’ dated 15.9.2009 and the local publication was made on 16.9.2009. The substance was published in the locality on 9.2.2009. After conducting the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 8.9.2009 and two daily news papers ‘Andhra Bhoomi’ and ‘Indian Express’ dated 15.9.2009 and the local publication was made on 16.9.2009. Thereafter the notices under Sections 9 (1) and 10 and Sections 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 9.10.2009 informing the land owners / interested persons to attend the award enquiry on 30.10.2009. While further proceedings were pending, the present writ petition was filed on 3.2.2010 challenging the acquisition proceedings. It is not in dispute that if the Bypass road is formed as per the alignment proposed by VGTM UDA (Alignment No.2), the lands of the petitioners are not effected. However their lands are sought to be acquired under the impugned notification as per the alignment proposed by R & B Department (Alignment No.1) which has been approved by the Memo dated 6.8.2007. Assailing the said action, it is contended in the writ petition that the lands of the petitioners which are reserved for agricultural purpose in the Master Plan approved under the Urban Areas Development Act vide G.O.Ms.No.144, M.A. & U.D. Dept., dated 3.3.1998, cannot be used for the purpose of laying the Bypass road. Similarly the lands reserved in the Master Plan for laying road cannot be used for any other purpose. Therefore the approval of Alignment No.1 for the Bypass road which passes across the agricultural lands of the petitioners leaving the lands reserved in the Master Plan for Outer Ring Road is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act, particularly Section 13. The 1st respondent before making the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act failed to consider the mandatory and binding nature of the Master Plan on all the Departments including the respondents 4 to 6. The 1st respondent before making the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act failed to consider the mandatory and binding nature of the Master Plan on all the Departments including the respondents 4 to 6. While submitting that there cannot be any acquisition contrary to the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan approved under the Urban Areas Development Act or for the purposes prohibited thereunder, it is further contended that such acquisition cannot be said to be for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore the impugned acquisition without there being a public purpose is without jurisdiction. It is alleged that the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated by mala fides and colourable exercise of power since the proceedings are initiated at the instance of some rich landlords whose lands were reserved for 200 feet Outer Ring Road under the Master Plan to avoid acquisition of their lands. It is also alleged that the Alignment No.1 involves multiple curves which are hazardous for free flow of traffic and there is no scientific basis or reason for approving the same except to favour the rich landlords. It is also contended that as the 1st respondent had failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as required under Section 5-A (2) of the Act read with the Rules made thereunder, the impugned notifications are vitiated by gross violation of the principles of natural justice apart from being contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Statutory Rules. It is pleaded that except recording the objections of the petitioners, no enquiry as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted and that the petitioners were also not given an opportunity of hearing as required under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act read with the Rules made under Section 55 (1) of the Act. It is further contended that the acquisition of the lands reserved for agriculture for the purpose of formation of a road is also contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of A.P. Agricultural Lands (Conversion into Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and the policy of the Government of India to avoid the acquisition of the agricultural lands. It is further contended that the acquisition of the lands reserved for agriculture for the purpose of formation of a road is also contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of A.P. Agricultural Lands (Conversion into Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 and the policy of the Government of India to avoid the acquisition of the agricultural lands. On behalf of the 1st respondent -The District Collector, Krishna – a counter-affidavit has been initially filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada stating that in response to the notices issued under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners 1 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 appeared for enquiry and submitted their objections. Their statements were recorded during the enquiry and they had also availed the opportunity of personal hearing. Out of total 110 land owners, 23 persons raised objections for formation of the Bypass road. The Sub-Collector, Vijayawada vide proceedings dated 26.5.2009 submitted the objections received from the land owners and the reports thereon to the Collector, Krishna, for consideration and passing of necessary orders. Having considered the same, the District Collector, Krishna, by proceedings dated 12.8.2009 overruled the objections raised by the land owners / interested persons and the same was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal for service on the objector and accordingly they were served. The proposals for draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were submitted to the Collector, Krishna for approval vide proceedings dated 28.7.2009 and the same was approved by the District Collector on 4.9.2009. Thereafter the Section 6 declaration was published in the Gazette as well as the newspapers. The substance was also published in the locality. Thereafter, notices were served on all the interested persons to attend the award enquiry and the petitioner No.7 appeared for the award enquiry on 30.10.2009 and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50 lakhs per acre. The other petitioners did not choose to attend the award enquiry though notices were served on them. It is further stated that the bypass road is being formed in the interest of general public and the land in question has been acquired strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Out of the total land of Ac.34.83 cents sought to be acquired, the petitioners are concerned only with Ac.5.94 cents. It is further stated that the bypass road is being formed in the interest of general public and the land in question has been acquired strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Out of the total land of Ac.34.83 cents sought to be acquired, the petitioners are concerned only with Ac.5.94 cents. An additional counter-affidavit, dated 27.4.2010, has been filed by the District Collector, Krishna, himself reiterating the contents in the counter-affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and explaining further that the Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Vijayawada is the Requisitioning Department for the acquisition of the land in question and the alignment of Bypass road submitted by the R & B Department was approved by the Government of A.P. vide its Memo dated 6.8.2007. A sum of Rs.2,56,00,000/- was deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, by the R & B Department towards the cost of the acquisition. It is further stated that after careful examination and after considering all the alternative arrangements and after holding discussion with all the Departments the alignment was finalized by the Government and then the process of the land acquisition has been initiated. So far as the meeting held by the Collector & District Magistrate on 19.5.2007 and the suggestion made by him to follow the alignment proposed by the VGTM UDA is concerned, it is explained that the decision of the District Collector, who is only an implementing authority, is not final. As the Government vide Memo dated 6.8.2007 granted approval as per the alignment proposed by the R & B Department, in terms of the same the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. The allegation that the alignment was altered at the instance of rich landlords has been denied and it is stated that the alignment was finalized by the Government based on the public interest and utility values and the same has been implemented by the 1st respondent. The allegation of the petitioners that the objections raised by them were rejected without application of mind to the relevant factors has also been categorically denied. The allegation of the petitioners that the objections raised by them were rejected without application of mind to the relevant factors has also been categorically denied. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent – VGTM UDA – it is stated that the alignment proposed by VGTM UDA for the Bypass road was in conformity with the Outer Ring Road proposed in Zonal Development Plan of Nunna Zone connecting NH-9 and NH-5. It is further stated that any developmental activity should be according to the proposed Land Use Map of Zonal Development Plan which was prepared under the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act and approved by the Government. While denying the plea that a Bypass road is not necessary for Nunna village except during the Mango season, it is stated that a Bypass road has been proposed in the Zonal Development Plan so that the Government can develop it instead of another alignment which involves additional land acquisition. The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Vijayawada filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents 4, 5 and 6 stating that pursuant to the approval of the alignment vide Government Memo dated 6.8.2007 and the administrative sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 23.2.2007, a sum of Rs.2,56,00,000/- was deposited towards the cost of acquisition. The allegation of the petitioners that some rich landlords whose lands were reserved for 200 feet Outer Ring Road along with the owners of the lands having lands far away from the existing 80 feet road had conspired to change the alignment has been denied and it is stated that the alignment for the Bypass road has been proposed after considering the representations made by the Sarpanch of Nunna village and after detailed study of various aspects and such a policy decision taken by the Government cannot be questioned. Some of the land owners whose lands are also covered by the impugned notifications got themselves impleaded to the writ petition as respondents 7 to 43. It is stated in their counter-affidavit that they gave consent letters to the Executive Engineer, R & B, Vijayawada on 18.1.2009 and also delivered possession of the land covered by the notification to the Executive Engineer since the formation of the Bypass road at Nunna village is in public interest. It is stated in their counter-affidavit that they gave consent letters to the Executive Engineer, R & B, Vijayawada on 18.1.2009 and also delivered possession of the land covered by the notification to the Executive Engineer since the formation of the Bypass road at Nunna village is in public interest. It is explained that the Marketing Department of Government of A.P. established a big Mango market on Vijayawada – Nuzvid road at Nunna village which serves the districts of Krishna, Khammam, West Godavari and East Godavari. During Mango season which commences in March till the end of June every day hundreds of lorries come to the said market with mangos for being sent to far off places in North India. Nunna village is situated 10 kms. away from Vijayawada city and 1 km. from the Municipal limits of Vijayawada. The Vijayawada – Nuzvid Road passes through Nunna village and during the Mango season heavy traffic jams are created causing lot of delay in transport of Mangos to the market. In the circumstances, the Gram Panchayat of Nunna village passed a Resolution in December, 1999 requesting the Government of A.P. to provide a Bypass Road to Nunna village from 10/6 km to 16 km on Vijayawada-Nuzvid road. After careful study of traffic density, the necessity of the Bypass road was strongly recommended by the Engineer-in-Chief on 27.03.2000 and the same was sanctioned by the Government under BOT on 3.10.2000. As the same could not be executed, fresh proposals were made in the year 2006 and on the basis of the report submitted by the Engineer-in-Chief, R & B, dated 15.12.2006, the sanction was accorded by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 23.2.2007. The plea of the petitioners that they were small farmers has been denied and it is alleged that the District Collector, Krishna, in the meeting held on 19.5.2007 suggested to follow the alignment proposed by VGTM UDA without considering the relative merits. Points for consideration:- .(1) Whether the impugned acquisition proceedings are illegal on the ground of the alleged contravention of the provisions of Urban Areas Development Act? .(2) Whether the impugned acquisition proceedings suffered from illegality on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that the objections raised were rejected without proper application of mind to the relevant factors? .(2) Whether the impugned acquisition proceedings suffered from illegality on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and that the objections raised were rejected without proper application of mind to the relevant factors? I have heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri D. Krishna Murthy, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition; and Sri B.V. Subbaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 43, and perused the material available on record. I have heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri D. Krishna Murthy, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition; and Sri B.V. Subbaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 43, and perused the material available on record. POINT No.1:- The relevant provisions under the Urban Areas Development Act may be extracted hereunder: “S. 2 (b) 'Authority' means an Urban Development Authority constituted under subsection (1) of Section 3 or a Special Area Development Authority constituted under subsection (1) of Section 3-A for a development area under this Act; S. 2 (e) 'development' with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development plan referred to in this Act, and the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes re-development: Provided that for the purposes of this Act, the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve development of the land that is to say-- .(i) the carrying out of any temporary works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building; .(ii) the carrying out by a local authority of any temporary works required for the maintenance or improvement of a road, or works carried out on land within the boundaries of the road; (iii) the carrying out by a local authority or statutory undertaking of any temporary works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose; (iv) the use of any building or other land within the cartilage purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such; and (v) the use of any land for the purpose of agriculture, gardening or forestry (including afforestation) and the use for any purpose specified in this clause of any building occupied together with the land so used; S. 2 (f) 'development area' means any urban area or group of urban areas declared to be a development area under sub-section (1) of Section 13. S.13 Declaration of development areas and development of land in those and other areas:- (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, where Government consider it necessary to do so for purposes of proper development of any urban area or group of urban areas in this State they may, by notification, declare such urban area or group of urban areas to be a development area for the purposes of this Act. (2) The Government may, by notification and in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf-- (a) exclude from a development area any area comprised therein; or (b) include in a development area any other area. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which is not a development area. (4) After the commencement of this Act, no development of land within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government, unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (5) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area within the development area, no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area unless such development is also in accordance with such plans. (6) Notwithstanding anything in any other law or the provisions contained in subsections (4) and (5), development of any land undertaken in accordance with any law by any person or body including any department of the Government or any local authority before the commencement of this Act, may be completed without compliance with the requirements of those sub-sections: Provided that such development of land shall be completed within one year from the date of commencement of this Act; unless the Authority for good and sufficient reason, extends the said period of one year for such further period as it deems fit. (7) After the commencement of this Act, no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government in such area adjoining to or in the vicinity of the development area, as may be notified by the Government unless approval of or sanction for such development has been obtained in writing from the local authority concerned, in accordance with the provisions of relevant law relating thereto, including the law relating to town planning for the time being in force and the rules and regulations made thereunder: Provided that the local authority concerned may, in consultation with the Authority, frame or suitably amend its regulations in their application to such area adjoining to or in the vicinity of the development area. (8) (a) Where any part of the area adjoining to or in the vicinity of the development area, as notified under sub-section (7), is in the process of rapid development or is likely to develop in the near future, the local authority concerned shall, either on the direction of the Government or on the advice of the Authority, prepare in consultation with the Authority, Town Planning Scheme under the law relating to Town Planning, for the time being in force, and publish the schemes as required under that law and submit them to the Government for sanction. (b) Any development in the area covered by such Town Planning schemes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the schemes as sanctioned by the Government. (c) Where in regard to the matters specified in sub-section (7) and of this sub-section there is a difference of opinion between the local authority concerned and the Authority, the matter shall be referred to the Government, whose decision thereon shall be final. (9) In this section, and in Sections 14, 16 and 41 the expression Department of the Government' means any department, organisation or public undertaking of the State Government or of the Central Government. (9) In this section, and in Sections 14, 16 and 41 the expression Department of the Government' means any department, organisation or public undertaking of the State Government or of the Central Government. S. 41 Penalties:- (1) Any person who, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person or any body including a department of the Government, undertakes, or carries out development of any land in contravention of the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in Section 13 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, and in the case of a continuing offence, with further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence. (2) Any person who uses any land or building in contravention of the Provisions of Section 15 or in contravention of any terms and conditions determined by regulations under the proviso to that section shall be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, and in the case of a continuing offence with further fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence. (3) Any person who obstructs the entry of a person authorised under Section 40 to enter into or upon any land or building or molests such person after such entry, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. S.57 Effect of other laws:- (1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6) of Section 42 or sub-section (7) of Section 43 or sub-section (1) of this section, the provision of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (6) of Section 42 or sub-section (7) of Section 43 or sub-section (1) of this section, the provision of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. (3) Notwithstanding anything in any other law-- (a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained. (b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Urban Areas Development Act being a code by itself so far as the development as defined in Section 2 (e) of the said Act is concerned, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act must yield to the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act and therefore there cannot be any acquisition contrary to the approved Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan. While relying upon Section 13 (4), (5) & (7) and Section 57 (3) of the Urban Areas Development Act, the learned counsel vehemently contended that in view of the said overriding provisions, every person or authority including any Department of the Government are bound to follow the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan for carrying out any work within the development area. It is further contended that in view of Section 12 of the Urban Areas Development Act unless and until the Master plan is modified following the procedure prescribed therein, the Bypass road as per the alignment prepared by the R & B Department cannot be formed. Since no such modification is made so far, it is contended that the approval of the alignment vide Government Memo dated 6.8.2007 is illegal and consequently the formation of the Bypass road on the basis of such illegal approval cannot be held to be a “public purpose” as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since no such modification is made so far, it is contended that the approval of the alignment vide Government Memo dated 6.8.2007 is illegal and consequently the formation of the Bypass road on the basis of such illegal approval cannot be held to be a “public purpose” as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decisions in SHAKUR BASTI SHAMSHAN BHUMI SUDHAR SAMITI v. LT. GOVERNOR, NCT OF DELHI (2007) 13 SCC 53 , K.K. BHALLA v. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. AIR 2006 SC 898 , BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL AND ORS. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANN. AIR 2008 SC 1771 (1) and STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTEHRS v. SANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND OTHERS (2007) 6 SCC 292 . On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 43 contended that the alleged contravention of Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan approved under the Urban Areas Development Act are not relevant so far as the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are concerned and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. In SHAKUR BASTI SHAMSHAN BHUMI SUDHAR SAMITI’S case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners the land in question, which was acquired under the provisions of the Development Act, was shown to be a residential area in the layout plan. The said land was proposed to be allotted by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in favour of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which was managing the affairs of a cremation ground. It was held by the Supreme Court that such an allotment would be illegal being contrary to the Development Plan. In K.K. BHALLA’S case (2 supra) the lands in question were situated in the commercial area in the Master Plan made in terms of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The State of Madhya Pradesh allotted the said land for establishment of an industry. The said action was challenged contending that the allotment for industrial purpose was in contravention of the Master Plan since it had effected change of purpose as regards user thereof. The State of Madhya Pradesh allotted the said land for establishment of an industry. The said action was challenged contending that the allotment for industrial purpose was in contravention of the Master Plan since it had effected change of purpose as regards user thereof. The impugned action was sought to be justified by the respondents on the ground that the allotment was made in terms of a policy decision adopted by the State. The Supreme Court held that the purpose for which allotments were made may be well meaning, but the allotments being contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules were void and of no effect being illegal. It was also held that the purpose for which the allotment was made would be wholly irrelevant if it contravened the mandatory provisions of the Statute or the Statutory Rule. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the above decisions that the allotment cannot be contrary to the land use proposed in the Development Plan. However the question of validity of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Development Act did not fall for consideration in the said decisions. Hence the said decisions have no relevance to the case on hand. The decision in BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL’S case (3 supra) wherein it was held that formation of the opinion by the State Government was a condition precedent for exercising the power of modification to the Development Plan is also clearly distinguishable on facts and has no application to the present case. In STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTEHRS v. SANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND OTHERS (4 supra) the State of Punjab sought to acquire the land in question under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a public purpose namely for setting up of new town ‘Anandgarh’, at the behest of the Special Planning Agency constituted under Section 31 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 invoking Section 42 of the said Act which provided for acquisition of land for the purposes of the authority under the said Act. The acquisition proceedings were challenged contending inter alia that the notifications were issued in derogation of the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. The acquisition proceedings were challenged contending inter alia that the notifications were issued in derogation of the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana struck down the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds including the impugned acquisition which was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act was not sustainable. The judgment of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court having taken note of the scope and object of Section 42 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 which provided for acquisition of land by the State on a request made by the Authority for purposes of the Authority under the said Act. In the facts of the said case, particularly having regard to the language of Section 42 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, the Supreme Court held that the State on its own satisfaction could not have acquired the land for the purposes of any other scheme under the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners while submitting that Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act is akin to Section 42 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, vehemently contended that the ratio laid down in the above decision would squarely apply to the present case. Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act reads as under: “S. 18 Compulsory acquisition of land:- (1) If, in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under this Act, the Government may acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act reads as under: “S. 18 Compulsory acquisition of land:- (1) If, in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under this Act, the Government may acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) Where any land has been acquired by the Government they may, after they have taken possession of the land, transfer the land to the Authority or any local authority for the purpose for which the land has been acquired on payment by the Authority or the local authority of the compensation awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the acquisition.” A plain reading of the above provision shows that it is open to the Government to acquire any land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on being satisfied that such land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under the Urban Areas Development Act. The decision in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTEHRS v. SANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND OTHERS (4 supra) was based upon Section 42 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, wherein the acquisition of land was permitted only if a request was made by the Authority to do so for purposes of the Authority under the said Act. Having regard to the fact that there was no such request by the Authority, it was held in the said decision that the State Government could not have initiated the acquisition proceedings. However the powers conferred under Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act are wider than the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 42 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995.Under Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act, the State on its own satisfaction can acquire the land for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under the Urban Areas Development Act. At any rate, this is not a case where the acquisition proceedings were initiated invoking Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act. At any rate, this is not a case where the acquisition proceedings were initiated invoking Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act. Hence the ratio laid down in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTEHRS v. SANJEET SINGH GREWAL AND OTHERS (4 supra) which was decided in the particular facts and circumstances of the said case has no bearing on the issue involved in the present case. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition while relying upon AFLATOON v. Lt. GOVERNOR OF DELHI (1975) 4 SCC 285 and BHAGAT SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 1998 (9) Supreme 361 contended that the Government can acquire any property under the Land Acquisition Act for a valid public purpose and the same cannot be questioned on the ground of alleged contraventions of the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act. In AFLATOON’S case (5 supra), it was held that Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which provided for sanction or approval of the local authority for planned development in an area other than a development area had nothing to do with acquisition of property and that acquisition generally precedes development. While observing that the Government could acquire any property under the Land Acquisition Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the Local Authority, it was held as under : “It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi except in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force but there is no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the Act before the Master Plan was ready. (See the decision in Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi (1963) Suppl. (2) SCR 312). In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development, area with the approval of sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development, It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development, It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. " Following the above decision, it was held in BHAGAT SINGH’S case (5 supra) that there was no need that the land proposed to be acquired by the Government for a particular public purpose should be for the same purpose or use mentioned in the Master Plan or Zonal Plan for the said area. While observing that the acquisition would not be invalid merely because the land proposed to be acquired was for a purpose other than the one permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan applicable to that locality, it was further held in BHAGAT SINGH’S case (5 supra) as under : “Acquisition will be valid if it is for a public purpose even if it is not for the type of user permitted by the Master Plan or Zonal Plan in force at the time the acquisition is made. It will be for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act and obtain the sanction of the said authority for suitable modification of the Master Plan so as to permit the use of the land for the public purpose for which the land is acquired. In fact, it may be difficult for the beneficiary of the acquisition to move the competent authority under the Development Act seeking permission to change of land use even before the land is acquired or before possession is given to the beneficiary. On the principle stated in Aflatoon's case, it is clear that acquisition for a public purpose and obtaining permission from competent authority under the concerned Development Act for change of land use are different from one another and the former is not dependent upon the latter.” From the above decisions, it is clear that the acquisition for a public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is different from the development of such land. There can be no dispute that “formation of Bypass road to Nunna” for which the land in question is sought to be acquired is in the general interest of the community and therefore it must be regarded as a public purpose. There can be no dispute that “formation of Bypass road to Nunna” for which the land in question is sought to be acquired is in the general interest of the community and therefore it must be regarded as a public purpose. Once the satisfaction of the Government as to the existence of public purpose is found to be proper, the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be held to be vitiated merely on the ground that the utilisation of the land so acquired would be in contravention of the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act. Admittedly the impugned acquisition is not at the instance of VGTM UDA and Section 18 of the Urban Areas Development Act has not been invoked. The R & B Department is the requisition department and the cost of acquisition has been deposited by them. No other provision in the Urban Areas Development Act either expressly or by necessary implication prohibits such acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is in contravention of the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan. As observed in AFLATOON’S case (5 supra) and BHAGAT SINGH’S case (6 supra), it is for the beneficiary of the impugned acquisition to put the land acquired to use in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act. Thus the question of compliance with the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act would arise at a later stage i.e., after the acquisition proceedings are completed and the land is transferred to the beneficiary. Following the decisions of the Apex Court in AFLATOON’S case (5 supra) and BHAGAT SINGH’S case (6 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court in BARLA RAMI REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2008 (3) ALT 336 while dealing with a case arose under identical circumstances rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners therein that the proceedings for acquisition of land for development under the Urban Areas Development Act cannot be initiated without the approval of the amendment to the Master Plan. The said decision was upheld by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 15.6.2010 in W.A.No.491 of 2008 and etc. The said decision was upheld by the Division Bench by Judgment dated 15.6.2010 in W.A.No.491 of 2008 and etc. Therefore the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be acquisition contrary to the Master Plan and it cannot be held to be a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act is without substance and untenable. The contention that the alignment proposed by R & B Department for which the impugned notifications are issued, was approved only to favour the rich landlords and that there was no scientific basis or reason for approving the said alignment is also equally untenable. The law is well-settled that it is for the State Government to decide whether the land is needed for a public purpose and whether it is suitable or adaptable for the purpose for which the acquisition is sought. Such decision taken by the Government warrants no interference particularly when the petitioners failed to establish that the satisfaction of the State Government regarding existence of public purpose is vitiated by mala fide or colourable exercise of power. As a matter of fact, W.P.No.18310 of 2009 filed by some other land owners challenging the very same acquisition proceedings was dismissed by this Court by order dated 1.12.2009 holding that the questions relating to alignment and the change of alignment cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P.Nos.25948/2009, 23985/2007 and 27229/2007 filed by way of PIL assailing G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 23.2.2007 granting administrative sanction for formation of Nunna Bypass Road were also dismissed by this Court observing that it is for the Government to decide whether the road at a particular place is required or not. As the said orders became final, it is not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the said issue. Hence, on Point No.1, I hold that the impugned acquisition proceedings are not illegal on the ground of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act. As the said orders became final, it is not open to the petitioners to re-agitate the said issue. Hence, on Point No.1, I hold that the impugned acquisition proceedings are not illegal on the ground of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act. POINT No.2:- So far as the contention of the petitioners that the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated as the objections raised by them in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were not considered on application of mind to the relevant factors and even the proceedings rejecting the objections were not communicated to the petitioners is concerned, the learned Government Pleader, while relying upon the decision in SAWARAN LATA v. STATE OF HARYANA AIR 2010 SC 1664 , vehemently contended that it is not open to the petitioners to raise such an objection at a belated stage when the acquisition proceedings have reached the final stage and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. It is true that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 9.2.2009 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 4.9.2009. However, it is pleaded by the petitioners that though the objections were allegedly overruled on 12.8.2009 the proceedings were not communicated to the petitioners in spite of the requests made by them and ultimately they had to make applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for copies of the said proceedings. As soon as the said proceedings were supplied on various dates in January, 2010, the present writ petition was filed on 3.2.2010 and thus there is absolutely no delay on the part of the writ petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to hold that there was any such unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court so as to reject the relief on the ground of laches. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to hold that there was any such unreasonable and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court so as to reject the relief on the ground of laches. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the Rules made under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vehemently contended that as per Rule 3 of the said Rules after receiving the objections from the persons interested the 1st respondent is bound to fix a date for hearing and the copies of objections shall be forwarded to the Requisition Department and his answer to the objections shall be given to the objector. Thereafter a date for enquiry must be fixed giving both the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. It is contended that as the 1st respondent failed to follow the said procedure, the impugned notifications are vitiated by gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure laid down under the Statutory Rules. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. v. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND OTHERS AIR 2005 SC 3520 (1) wherein it was held that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right akin to a fundamental right. In the counter-affidavits filed by the 1st respondent, the allegations made by the petitioners have been denied and it is stated that the petitioners had also availed the opportunity of personal hearing. It is explained that the objections raised by the petitioners and other land owners along with the reports thereon were submitted by the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada vide proceedings dated 26.5.2009 to the Collector, Krishna for his consideration. The District Collector, Krishna, by order dated 12.8.2009 overruled the objections raised by the landholders as they were without any substance and the said order was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal for service on the objectors and accordingly the same was served on the objectors. The District Collector, Krishna, by order dated 12.8.2009 overruled the objections raised by the landholders as they were without any substance and the said order was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal for service on the objectors and accordingly the same was served on the objectors. Though in the Reply-affidavit filed by the petitioners, the plea of the 1st respondent that the order passed by the District Collector, dated 12.8.2009 was served upon the objectors has been denied, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to hold that the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated on the ground of the alleged noncompliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. This is a case where the land to an extent of Ac.34.83 cents is sought to be acquired for formation of the Bypass road. Admittedly the petitioners are concerned only with Ac.5.94 cents out of the total land sought to be acquired. The material available on record shows that out of total 110 land owners, only 23 persons raised objections. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, the acquisition was opposed on the ground that they are small farmers and that their only source of livelihood would be lost. Having held that the objections were without any substance, the same were rejected vide proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.8.2009 and thereafter the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. Even assuming that the respondents committed an error in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners, having regard to the fact that a large chunk of the land has already been taken possession by the respondents and the formation of Bypass road is held up only on the objections raised by the petitioners in respect of small extents of land held by them, in my considered opinion the hardship that may be suffered by the petitioners cannot be a valid ground to set aside the impugned acquisition proceedings. The law is well settled that the public interest shall outweigh the interest of the individuals and therefore I do not find any justifiable reason to grant the Mandamus as prayed for. The law is well settled that the public interest shall outweigh the interest of the individuals and therefore I do not find any justifiable reason to grant the Mandamus as prayed for. In BONDU RAMASWAMY v. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2010) 7 SCC 129 the Apex Court declined to interfere observing that while granting relief in the proceedings in which the entire acquisition is challenged it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that many land losers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation particularly the fact that possession of considerable portions of acquired lands has already been taken. For the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned acquisition proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.