Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government at the instance of the Rajasthan Housing Board for the purpose of setting up a housing colony. Petitioners have challenged the award dated 14.10.2009 (Ann. 13) and the notification issued u/Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "Act of 1894"). 2. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that notification u/S. 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued by the State on 5.9.2005 (Ann. 4) whereas, it was published in the Gazette Notification on 15.9.2005. Respondents were for reasons of malafide on their part, delayed this notification duly published in papers on 16.7.2006. Notification u/S. 6 was issued on 11.7.2007, which was published on 25.7.2007 in the gazette and in newspaper on 17.10.2007. Delay in publication of notification in the newspaper may be held to be malafide and illegal because if the period is counted from the date of gazette notification issued u/S. 4, notification u/S. 6 would be barred by limitation of one year prescribed therein because it was published on 11.7.2007. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners raised objection u/S. 5A that acquisition of the land would render ineffective because it was cultivable land and is only source of his livelihood. Grievance of the petitioners has not been considered by the land acquisition officer in his report under Section 5A. Personal hearing has also not been afforded to the petitioners prior to the said objection. Learned counsel submitted that in response to the notice received by the petitioners u/S. 9, they had submitted a reply thereof that adjacent to this land, another government land is available and therefore, there was no justification for acquisition of the land of the petitioners. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for petitioners and perusing the material available on record, I find that argument of the petitioners that delay of ten months in publication of the notification u/S. 4 in the newspaper should be held to be illegal and malafide, cannot be accepted because allegation of malafide cannot be taken proved at the mere ipse dixit of the petitioners. It is not alleged as to who was responsible for this delay and how was the delay deliberate and malafide when it is directed against any particular officer but on the part of State Government, which is moved by an impersonal machinery, where such delay is not unnatural. 4. It is trite law that period of one year prescribed u/S. 6 has to be counted from the date when notification u/S. 4 was last published by any kind of modes prescribed. In the instant case, notification was published in newspaper on 16.7.2006 and notification u/S. 6 was issued on 16.7.2007, therefore this argument cannot be sustained. 5. Another argument and objection of the petitioners that they were deprived of agricultural land which was only source of their livelihood has also been considered by the land acquisition officer, which is evident from his report u/S. 5A but he has said that petitioners shall be adequately compensated by award of compensation and with the help of that money, they can sustain themselves. Regarding objection about other government land being available raised by the petitioners by way of objection, they have raised this objection in response to the notice issued u/S. 9, which was not the stage. Such objection could not considered at the stage of notice under Section 4/5A of the Act of 1894. Land acquisition officer has already passed the award according to which, compensation has been awarded @ Rs. 8000/- per air and name of petitioner No. 1 figures at Sr.No. 25, which fact is evident from the document Ann. 8. The total land of the petitioners was 0.40 hectare and if the amount of solarium is added further @ 30%, a total sum of Rs. 4,16,000/- has been awarded to the petitioners as compensation. 6. I donot find any infirmity in the land acquisition proceedings and the impugned award therefore, writ petition is dismissed.