The State Government must apply its mind to the existence or otherwise of the two preconditions, namely, (i) that there was urgency; and (ii) that the land was waste or arable land, to enable the State Government to take valid recourse to the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act.

1. - 24 Writ petitions were filed in the High Court by various petitioners, challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings, initiated under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Act No. 24 of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), relating to lands situated in village Sukhalpura, Devri, Jhalana Chod, Balrampura, Balrampura and Nand Kishorepura. On January 12, 1982, the Government of Rajasthan, in exercise of its powers, conferred by Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, issued Notification (Annexure-P/3) to the effect that the land in question was likely to be needed for public purpose, namely, for the construction of residential colony, through the Rajasthan Housing Board. The State Government authorised one of its subordinate officers, namely, the Special Officer, Urban Development Housing Department, to enter the said land and survey it. Subsequently on February 9, 1982, the State Government, in the purported exercise of its powers under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the, Act, issued second Notification (Aunexure-P/4), directing that since the acquisition of the said land was urgently required the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act would not apply to the proceedings of acquisition. By the same Notification the Government also made declaration under Section 6 of the Act that the notified land was needed tor public purpose and directed the Special Officer to take orders for the acquisition of the said land. The Government simultaneously directed the said Officer under sub-section, (I) of Section 17 to take possession of the notified land within 15 days of the publication of the notices mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act. A public notice, dated May 5, 1982, was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, on May 7, 1982, stating that the Special Officer intended to take possession of the notified land after the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice and that claims to the compensation or of interest on such laud he made to him.

2. In the writ petitions, filed by the petitioners, the main attack was on the Notification Annexure-P/4, dated February 9, 1982, issued by the State Government in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the Act. The petitioners' case is that this Notification, which was issued with a view to dispensing with compliance with the requirements of Section 5-A of the Act, is void inasmuch as, the State Government did not apply its mind as to the existence or otherwise of the two preconditions, namely, (i) that there was urgency; and (ii) that the land was waste or arable land, to enable the State Government to take valid recourse to the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act. According to the petitioners, there was no urgency at all and in any case the urgency, if any, not of such a character so as to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Had the State Government applied its mind to the question as to whether the land, which formed the subject-matter of the acquisition was waste or arable, it would have discovered that their pucca residential buildings and other constructions in existence thereon and that it could not have been possibly treated as waste or arable land. It was also urged that a perusal of the impugned Notification revealed that while it contained recital regarding urgency it was conspicuously silent as to whether the notified land was waste or arable, indicating thereby that the question regarding the land being waste or arable was not even present before the authorities, who acted on behalf of the State Government while issuing the impugned Notification and, therefore, the High Court should hold that the State Government failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law. It did not at all apply its mind and the impugned Notification deserved to be quashed.

3. Learned Single judge, before whom these cases came up for decision, after taking into conside