JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Assailing the order of the learned single ' Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in W.P. No. 3597 of 2005, dated 4.8.2005, the present writ appeal came to be filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 2. The issue involved in the writ petition is as to whether the authorities were justified in invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (urgency clause) when they are in dire need of providing house sites to the persons, who are residing on the road side margins. 3. The above writ petition came to be filed questioning the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire land admeasuring Ac. 3.27 cents in Sy. No. 57/2 of Madiki village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. It is the case of the appellants-writ petitioners that they are archakas of the 4th respondent-Sri Kodanda Ramaswamy Vari Temple and they are eking out their livelihood by cultivating the temple land in Sy. No. 57/2 of Madiki village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 28190 of 1995 apprehending high-handed dispossession from the temple lands, which were given to their ancestors for meeting the expenses of Nitya Dhoopa Nivedyam. The said writ petition was dismissed on 20.8.2004, challenging the same WA No. 1761 of 2004 came to be filed by the petitioners, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein not to disturb the possession of the petitioners over the subject land except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It was also directed that in case, there is any proposal to acquire the subject land, it would be open for the petitioners to establish their title by appearing before the competent authority and challenge the proceedings in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, East Godavari, issued proceedings, acquiring the subject land by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the lands of the 4th respondent-temple in Sy. Nos. 171/A and B admeasuring Ac. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, East Godavari, issued proceedings, acquiring the subject land by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the lands of the 4th respondent-temple in Sy. Nos. 171/A and B admeasuring Ac. 19.19 cents are very much available for the proposed public purpose, and the authorities without considering the factual and legal aspects and the objections raised by them from the year 1995, proceeded with the acquisition of the subject land. 4. The beneficiaries were brought on record as respondents Nos. 5 to 8 in the writ petition. A counter-affidavit came to be filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 stating that the land in Sy. No. 57/2 admeasuring Ac. 3.27 cents of Madiki village of Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District including other lands situated in Veeravaram village of Kadiam Mandal, were registered in the name of deity-4th respondent temple and the petitioners are the tenants to the subject land. It is further pleaded that the draft notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, came to be approved by the 1st respondent and published in local daily and the gazette and thereafter, notices under Sections 9(1) and 10, dated 21.2.2005, came to be issued, proposing to hold award enquiry on 9.3.2005. It is stated that the only reason for proposing the subject land for acquisition is that the beneficiaries are residing on either side of the road leading from Madiki village to Veeravaram village, and the proposed land is adjoining the present occupied road margin. It is further stated that the weaker sections, who are seeking house site pattas, are residing on the road side since a decade and they could not be provided with the house sites due to legal hurdles created by the petitioners. Hence, the present notification came to be issued invoking urgency clause. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated the stands taken by them in their affidavit and counter-affidavit respectively. After considering the same, the learned single Judge justified the action of the respondents in invoking the urgency clause, and the same is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. After considering the same, the learned single Judge justified the action of the respondents in invoking the urgency clause, and the same is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. Reiterating the stand taken in the affidavit and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Anand Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) AIR (SCW) 5152, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents did not place any material to establish the circumstances, which enabled them to invoke urgency clause for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, and that the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is mandate as held by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment. Hence, pleads that the power exercised by the respondents in invoking urgency clause cannot be justified. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Singh and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others is beneficial to the respondents, as no malafides were attributed to them in acquiring the subject land. 8. Before going into the merits of the case, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, which were referred to by the learned single Judge. In Yadaiah v. Government of A.P. 1983 ALT (1) 233 (FB), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, observed as follows: "Whenever Section 5-A enquiry is dispensed with although for providing house sites for Harijans, the Court must examine whether the material before the authority would reasonably justify the dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry and whether the authority has honestly applied its mind to those matters and excluded all irrelevant considerations. It is equally important for the statutory authorities to note that the statutory provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the Act do not authorize them to dispense with Section 5-A enquiry as a routine matter." In Chatapalli Nadipi Subbarayudu v. District Collector, Kurnool 2005 (6) ALT 718 : 2005 (1) ALD 517, this Court set aside the order of dispensation of Section 5-A enquiry on the ground of non-deposit of the compensation amount before taking possession of the land and not taking possession of the land within three months as mandated under Section 17(5)(A) of the Act. 9. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh AIR 1980 SC 319 held as under: "Bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power-sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and of ten times overlaps motives, passions, and satisfactions - is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfillment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. It is fundamental that' compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable "and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Arts. 14 and 19, burke an enquiry under Sec. 17 of the Act." Apart from the above, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants (1st cited supra), wherein the apex Court held as under: "Now, two recent decisions of this Court need to be noticed. In Babu Ram and another v. State of Haryana and another, this Court was concerned with the legality of the notification" for acquisition of land for construction of sewage treatment plant. The appropriate government invoked its power under Section 17(2)(c) and by invoking its power under Section 17(4) excluded the application of Section 5A of the Act. In Babu Ram and another v. State of Haryana and another, this Court was concerned with the legality of the notification" for acquisition of land for construction of sewage treatment plant. The appropriate government invoked its power under Section 17(2)(c) and by invoking its power under Section 17(4) excluded the application of Section 5A of the Act. After referring to few decisions of this Court, particularly, State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others and Om Prakash and another v. State of U.P. and others, it was observed that these decisions assign a great deal of importance to the right of a citizen to file objections under Section 5A of the Act and the fact that such right was elevated to the status of a fundamental right is in itself sufficient to indicate that great care had to be taken by the authorities before resorting to Section 17(4) of the Act and they have to satisfy themselves that there was an urgency of such nature which could brook no delay whatsoever. In another case, viz.; Tika Ram and others v. State of U.P. and others etc., constitutional validity of the provisions of Sections 17(1), 17(1A), 17(3A) 17(4) and the proviso to Section 17(4) as amended by U.P. Act 5 of 1991 was under challenge besides the various other provisions of the Act. This Court overruled the challenge to the constitutionality of the afore-noticed provisions. As regards invocation of power under Section 17 of the Act and doing away with Section 5A enquiry, it was held: "While considering as to whether the-' Government was justified in doing away with the inquiry under Section 5-A, it must be noted that there are no allegations of mala fides against the authority. No evidence has been brought before the judgment and the High Court has also. commented on this. The housing development and the planned developments have been held to be the matters of great urgency by the Court in Pista Devi case. In the present case we have seen the judgment of the High Court which has gone into the records and has recorded categorical finding that there was sufficient material before the State Government and the State Government has objectively considered the issue of urgency. Even before this Court, there were no allegations of mala fides. In the present case we have seen the judgment of the High Court which has gone into the records and has recorded categorical finding that there was sufficient material before the State Government and the State Government has objectively considered the issue of urgency. Even before this Court, there were no allegations of mala fides. A notice can be taken of the fact that all the lands which were acquired ultimately came to be utilised for the Scheme. We, therefore, reject the argument that there was no urgency to justify dispensation of Section 5A inquiry by applying the urgency clause"." 10. From the above judgment referred to by the learned single Judge, it is evident that the urgency clause can be invoked depending upon the circumstances and the purpose, for which the land is proposed to be acquired. The observations made in the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants (1st cited supra), are beneficial to the respondents, as it makes clear that when no mala fides are attributed against the authorities in acquiring the subject lands, dispensing with 5A enquiry by the authorities cannot be found fault with. In fact, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no mala fides are attributed against the authorities in acquiring the subject land. Further, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the entire compensation has been paid, possession has been taken by the authorities concerned and residential houses have already been constructed therein. 11. Having regard to the above, we are "not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.