( 1 ). We have heard the counsel for the parties. The main question canvassed before the division bench in WP No. 3084 of 1987 was that the government was not justified in invoking Section 17 (1 read with Section 17 (4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. The High court following its earlier decision has quashed the notification on the ground that the notification did not recite the nature of the urgency. Planned Development of Delhi is not urgent and, therefore, the exercise of the power under Section 17 (4 was illegal. We do not find that the view taken by the High court is legal and correct. In Aflatoon v. Lt. governor of Delhi, the Constitution bench of this court had upheld the exercise of power under Section 17 (4 dispensing the enquiry under Section 5-A. It was for planned development of Delhi which would take long time for development. Yet this court upheld the exercise of the power of urgency. It is subjective satisfaction of the government based on the material on record. The High court is not a court of appeal over subjective satisfaction and the opinion of the government is entitled to great weight. Therefore,