( 51 ) THE inference that there was no urgency is re-enforced by the course of the proceedings here. On 1st September 1972, when the petition was admitted, an ex-parte interim order was made restraining the dispossession of the petitioner from his lands. Notice of the application for stay was served on the respondent for 4th October 1972. On that date no one appeared for the respondents and the ex-parte order 'was confirmed. Though the petition remained pending for three years, at no time was an application made to have that order set aside. Had the need for the land been urgent, some attempt would surely have been made to secure possession. The inertia of Delhi Administration proves that there was no pressing need. and the inevitable conclusion is that there was no urgency.

( 52 ) HENCE, section 17 (1) and (4) could not be resorted to in the present case. Except the notification under section 4, all the proceedings taken are invalid. Accordingly, in my opinion, this petition should be allowed and notifications (iii), (iv) and (v) should be quashed, saving the first three paragraphs of notification (iii) which pertain to section 4 of the Act. The respondents will, or course, be ent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document