( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226, the validity of the notification dt. 26th april, 1973 issued by the State Govt under S. 4 read with sub-sec (4) of s. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act', fails for decision.

( 2 ) BY the said notification, Sy No. 9/7 belonging to the petitioner has been acquired for a public purpose to wit for village extension of ID. Halli village. It is stated therein that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisons of S. 5a of the Act shall not apply to the acquisition of the land. It is the contention of the petitioner that the purpose for which his land was sought to be acquired was not so urgent as to dispense with the enquiry ujs. 5a and the decision of the Govt that it was an urgent matter was not based on relevant facts. The said notification is sought to be defended on behalf of the State by contending that this Court cannot go behind the notification as the opinion expressed by the Govt regarding the urgency of the matter was based on their subjective satisfaction. In support of the contention. Counsel for State relied upon the decision of this Court in Babu devendrappa Yernal v. State of Mysore, 1974 (1) Mys. L. J. 354 and the decision of the Supreme court in Raha Anand Brahma Sha v. State of U. P. , AIR 1967 SC 1081.

( 3 ) THE decision on the question turns on the scope and content of sub- secs (1) and (4) of S. 17. They read: * * *

( 4 ) THESE provisions confer special powers on the Govt to acquire lapd in case of urgency. If the State Govt from an opininon that the public purpose is of urgent importance, they may dispense with the enquiry contemplated under S. 5a and take possession qf the land. The opinion of the Govt is undoubtedly the result of subjective satisfaction; a proposition on which I do not think that there can be two opinions. But to state further that the opinion of the Govt is above judicial review may not be correct. In Kashappa v. Chief Secy, Mysore Govt, AIR 1963 Mys. 318== (1965) 1 Mys. L. J. 275. Somnath Iyer, J (as he then was) speaking for the Bench observed :". . . . . . The opinion formed by the Govt in their mind of the existence of urgency may be above judicial review, but there may be a case in which High Court may yet find it possible to say that that opinion is an impossible opinion either by reason of the fact that it rests upon no ground at all or rests on grqunde. which are demonstrated to be totally irrelevant. "in Thimme Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 1081 this Court observed :" It is absolutely not necessary for the State to specify the circumstances which formed the foundation for their opinion to dispense the enquiry under S. 5a of the Act. The requirements of the law shoud, however, be specified, on the scrutiny and investigation of the proceedings culminating in the direction made under S 17 (4)". This Court, in Thimme Gowda's case (4), after scrutiny of the relevant materials produced by the parties, held that there was no basis before the govt for forming an opinion that the case was so urgent as to invoke the power conferred under sub-sec (4) of S 17 of the Act In both the above cases, this Court proceeded on the ground that it is competent for this Court to examine the relevancy of materials on which the Govt formed their opinion regarding the existence of urgencv for acquisition

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the State, however, stronglv relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Anand Brahma Sha's case (2) in support of his contention In that case two principal questions were decided bv the supreme Court It was held that the declaration made bv the Stata govt in the notification under S 8 (1) of the Act, that the land was acquired for a public purpose is not open to a Court to go behind it, unless it is shown that the action of the Govt is a colourable exercise of power The other question decided by the Supreme Court related to the scope of enquiry by the Court when the Govt issued a notification under Se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document