R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) THE question which arises in this writ petition is whether the respondents were justified in invoking Section 17 and dispensing with the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) FOR constructing Laboratory for U. P. Council Sugarcane Research and Breeding Institute, Deoria, Cane Department requested the collector, Deoria for acquiring 6.41 acres land of plot no. 27 belonging to the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the land). The Collector by a letter dated 17-5- 1979 requested the Government of U. P. for acquiring the land and for issuance of Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 of the Act. Along with this letter, Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 were also sent to the Government. The Government appears to have agreed with the decision for acquiring the land, but asked the Collector about the quantum of compensation which will be required to be paid for the land. The question of compensation was not settled for several years, as the Cane Department was not willing to pay the compensation suggested by the Collector. All this resulted ia non-publication of Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act. Ultimately, a notice dated 17-7-1985 (under Section 4 of the Act was published in the locality regarding the acquisition of the land. The petitioners thereafter, filed a writ petition no. 11912 of 1985 -before this Court. The Government filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition in which it was stated that Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have already been published for acquiring the land and notices under Section 9 have also been issued to the petitioners. This Court in view of the averments made by the State in its counter affidavit, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant passage from the judgment of this Court dated 9-8-1988 is extracted below : "............it has been asserted in the counter affidavit that notifications. under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have already been published in the Gazette by the respondents. Indeed the assertion is that a notice under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has also been published as required by law." In view of these assertions of the State in its counter affidavit, the writ petition was dismissed. It appears that after the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioners made inquiry and then came to know that the State Government has filed a false affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition before this Court, as the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have not been - published so far. Petitioners accordingly filed another writ petition No. 17615 of 1988 before this Court mentioning therein about the false affidavit filed by the State in the earlier writ petition and non-publication of any Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. This Court on 7-9-1988 passed an interim order in this writ petition so as to protect possession of the petitioners over the land. Thereafter a Notification dated 27-12-1988 under Section 4 read with Section 17 was published by the Government in the U. P. Gazette dated 30-12-1988 for acquiring the land. The Notification was published in news papers of 19-1-1989 and in the locality on 21-1-1989, subsequently. Notification dated 27-3-1989 under Section 6 of the Act was also published by the State Government in the U. P. Gazette dated 27-3- 1989. It was published in news papers dated 7-4-1989 and 8-4-1989. Notices under Section 9 have also been issued to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, challenging the aforesaid notifications and the notices. At the admission stage parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and Government has produced original records before us. We have beard the learned counsel for both the parties and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
(3.) AS the Government has applied the provisions of Section 17 and has dispensed with the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act, the question for consideration is whether the Government was justified in applying Section 17 and eliminating the summary proceedings under Section 5-A, depriving the petitioners of the right to file objections. It is not mere urgency that can permit the Government to apply the provisions of Section 17 but urgency should be of the nature so as to eliminate the summary proceedings under Section 5-A. In Narain Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183 the Supreme Court has laid down that :- "The mind of the officer or authority concerned has to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act should be eliminated. It is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiry under Section 5-A which has to be considered.";