The court can take judicial notice of the urgency of the situation and the need to resolve traffic congestion in a town, and the State can legitimately dispense with the inquiry under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act in such cases.

1. - This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28.5.1996.

2. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State of Rajasthan for acquiring lands, required for constructing a bypass to divert traffic on the national highway passing through the town of Pali.

3. To initiate the proceedings of land acquisition, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16.9.95. This Notification was also published in Newspaper. It is alleged by the appellant that when he learnt about the proceedings under section 4(1) of the Act, he submitted objections under section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.10.95. Further case of the appellant is that while he was awaiting to be heard on his objections, he came to know that a Notification has been published in the Gazette of Rajasthan dated 16th October, 1995. The Notification was dated 13th October, 1995. By this Notification provisions of Section 5-A were made in applicable in the matter and a declaration was made under Section 17 of the Act for the agency of the purpose.

4. Counsel for the appellant challenges the Notification issued under section 17(1) of the Act notifying the urgency and also declaration that Section 5A of the Act will be inapplicable.

5. Argument raised by the appellant is that the declaration dated 13.10.95 is silent about the urgency. No fact or ground has been mentioned in the Notification, which necessitated the action under section 17 of the Act and consequently making of declaration under section 6 of the Act.

6. It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is absolutely no material on record to arrive at a conclusion that there is urgency in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant has based his argument on a Supreme Court case in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1977 SC 183 : 1977(1) SCC 133. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

"The formation of opinion under Section 17(4) is a subjective matter. The mind of the officer or authority concerned has really to be directed towards formation of an opinion on the need to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Nevertheless that opinion has to be based upon some relevant materials in order to pass the test which courts do impose. That test basically is : was the authority concerned acting within the scope of its powers or in the sphere where its opinion and discretion must be permitted to have full play ? Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some material, however meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the courts should not and will not interfere."

7. This case has been subject matter of consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various later decisions and one of such cases is reported in AIR 1986 SC 2025, State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi & Others. The Hon'ble Apex Court in considering the case of Narayan Govind Gavate (ibid), and a case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rasireddy Papaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1975 A.P. 269 has held that the problem of accommodation in these days has become a matter of national urgency. We may take judicial notice of the fact, and keeping this in view, the Apex Court has held that invoking provisions of Section 17 of the Act is necessary and also held that, the time when the case of Narayan Govind Gavate was held, related to the facts of 1963, and much time has elapsed thereafter.

8. The Narayan Govind Gavate's case has once again been subject matter of consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffaragar v. Ratan Prakash Mangal & Anr., reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 1459. In this case, the Apex Court has held that the view taken in State of U.P. v