ORDER All these writ petitions are filed assailing the proceedings initiated for acquisition of Ac.161-45 cents of land situated in Balabadrapuram Village, Bikkavolu MandaI, East Godavari District vide Notification dated 31.07.2010 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). Since common questions of fact and law arose for consideration, all the writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein claim to be the owners and possessors of different extents of land sought to be acquired under the impugned notification dated 31.07.2010 for the purpose of establishing an industrial park by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short," APIIC). Having taken up the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the 3rd respondent by notice dated 2.8.2010 called upon the petitioners to 17 submit their objections, if any. The petitioners participated in the enquiry and opposed the acquisition on the ground that the lands in question were double crop wet lands and moreover the lands contained mineral resources. However the 2nd respondent by order dated 29.12.2010 rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed. 3. It is pleaded in the writ petitions that pursuant to an application made by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, they were informed that the land in question ",;as required for the benefit of two companies namely; M/s. KPR Fertilizers and M/s. Kodandarama Boiled and Raw rice Mill. Therefore, according to the petitioners it is mandatory to follow the procedure contemplated under part-VII of the Act. Since the said procedure was not followed, it is contended that the impugned notification is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. While alleging that the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired at the behest of the Local M.L.A. for the purpose of setting up a power plant through APIIC and that some\ of the adjacent lands in Sy.Nos.12 to IS, 8 and 9 belonging to the close relatives and associates of Local M.L.A. had been deliberately excluded from the acquisition, it is also contended that though the said facts were specifically pleaded in their objections filed in Section 5-A enquiry, the 2nd respondent had rejected the objections mechanically without application of mind to any of the relevant factors. It is further contended that the APIIC had already acquired large chunks of agricultural ands in and around Rajahmundry and Kakinada which had not been put to use and therefore the impugned acquisition was unwarranted and unjustified. 4. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners and the objections raised by the petitioners were enquired into after calling for the remarks from the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact, the owners of the land to an extent of Ac.67-83 cents had given their consent for acquisition and accordingly the draft declaration was published on 8.11.2010. After holding the negotiations, the consent award was also passed for the said extent of Ac.67-83 cents. So far as the remaining land is concerned, the objections raised by the owners were considered and by order dated 29.12.2010 the same were rejected. The plea of the petitioners that their lands were double crop wet lands was denied and it is stated that in fact the lands were left fallow as there was no irrigation facility. It is further explained that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Kakinada, submitted requisition for acquisition of Ac.316-47 cents of land situated in Sy. Nos.1 to 16 of Balabadrapuram village and accordingly the impugned notification was issued in respect of Ac.161-77 cents. In between there was assigned land in Sy.No.8 and it was resumed by paying exgratia to the assignees to make a compact block. The acquisition of land for setting up industrial park is a public purpose and it has become inevitable to acquire the land in question since the same is found to be suitable for establishment of industrial park. The plea of the petitioners that the lands had been requisitioned only for the benefit of two private companies has been denied and it is stated that the acquisition is for the purpose of establishment of an industrial park by APIIC and that it is a public purpose. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent - APIIC, it is explained that APIIC is a Nodal Agency for development of industrial park in the State, which would facilitate social economic progress by weeding out unemployment, generating revenue and bringing new opportunities for the public at large, thereby resulting in the furtherance of the public interest. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent - APIIC, it is explained that APIIC is a Nodal Agency for development of industrial park in the State, which would facilitate social economic progress by weeding out unemployment, generating revenue and bringing new opportunities for the public at large, thereby resulting in the furtherance of the public interest. For the said purpose, the APIIC makes requisitions to the State Government for patta land to' be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Government land to be allotted under BSO 24. It is further stated that the lands acquired are to be used for development of industrial park duly allocating the same to entrepreneurs for setting up of various industries to promote the industrial sector. It is also stated that the APIIC is a Government company and does not fall within the meaning of the expression ' company' as defined in Section 3 (e) of the Act. So far as the information that was furnished to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is stated that merely because there was reference to two prospective allottees from APIIC, it did not mean that the acquisition was for a private company. The allegations of political interference and etc., have been categorically denied and it is stated that the decision to acquire the lands in question was approved by the Board of APIIC in its meeting held on 10.6.2010. It is also explained that there were hardly any lands available for allotment for industrial use at Samarlakota or nearby areas. Insofar as Industrial Park, Peddapuram (Phase-I) is concerned, an extent of Ac.122-00 cents was developed by the APIIC and allotted to several industrial units, out of which 47 are functioning and 7 are in the process of implementation. Insofar as Industrial Park, Peddapuram (DDL) is concerned, an extent of A.C.J 645-00 cents has been developed by the APIIC and allotted to 27 units, which are all functional and one unit is under implementation. Only an extent of about 87 acres is vacant in the aforementioned two industrial areas and the same is available for allotment. Insofar as Industrial Park, Peddapuram (DDL) is concerned, an extent of A.C.J 645-00 cents has been developed by the APIIC and allotted to 27 units, which are all functional and one unit is under implementation. Only an extent of about 87 acres is vacant in the aforementioned two industrial areas and the same is available for allotment. It is also stated that the lands in P.Perumallapuram, Thondangi (M), Ramanakkapeta, Mulapeta, Rama Raghavapuram, Seelamvari Palem, etc., U. Kothapalli (M) have not been acquired for the purpose of APIIC and the APIIC has nothing to do with the project KSEZ. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Corporation. 7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the land in question was sought to be acquired for the purpose of APIIC. In Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Rangareddy District (1) 2008 (7) SCJ 641 = (2008) 9 SCC 552 , while considering the validity of the acquisition of land for the purpose of APIIC, the apex Court held that the development of infrastructure was legal and legitimate public purpose for exercising power of eminent domain. Hence there can be no dispute that the impugned acquisition is for a public purpose. 8. Though it is alleged by the petitioners that the impugned acquisition was for the benefit of two private companies, the said allegation has been categorically denied by the APIIC and it is explained that the reference to the two companies in the information that was furnished to the petitioners was only with regard to the prospective allottees from APIIC, I do not find any justifiable reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the APIIC since APIIC is an instrumentality of the State and its main objects included acquisition of lands and development by providing infrastructural facilities so as to allot the same to entrepreneurs for industrial purposes. Hence the contention that the respondents ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Part-VII of the Act is untenable. 9. Hence the contention that the respondents ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Part-VII of the Act is untenable. 9. As noticed above, it is the specific case of the APIIC that no other suitable lands are available for allotment for industrial use in Samalkot or nearby areas: It is relevant to note that out of Ac.161.45 cents of land sought to be acquired under the impugned notification the owners of land to an extent of Ac.67-83 cents gave their consent and award was also passed for the said extent. As held by the Supreme Court in jayabheri Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of A.P. (2) 2010 (4) SCJ 287 = (2010) 5 SCC 590 and Bondu Ramaswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority (3) 2010 (5) SCJ 462 = (2010) 7 SCC 129 , where many land loosers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation and possession of considerable portions of acquired land has already been taken for the purpose of the development activities, it is necessary for the Court to take into consideration those factors while granting the relief. Having regard to the admitted fact that the impugned acquisition is for a public purpose and no alternative suitable land is available, the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners that the lands in question being double crop wet lands ought not to have been acquired, cannot be held to be arbitrary exercise of power. The order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 shows that all the objections raised by the petitioners were properly enquired into and the same were rejected on application of mind to the relevant factors. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever and accordingly all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.