The Court interpreted the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including Sections 4 (1), 5-A, 6, 17 (1) and (4), and the amended provisions of Section 6 (1), and held that the notifications under Section 4 (1) and Section 17 (1) and (4) were invalid, and that the declaration made under Section 6 without following the procedure under Section 5-A was also invalid.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners Whose lands have been notified for the purpose of acquisition under Section 4 (1) as well as under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") have approached this Court for quashing of the said two notifications which have been annexed as Annexures-1 and 1/a respectively to the writ application.

( 2 ) THE Government in the Revenue Department had issued the notification (Annexure-1) dated 26th of March, 1984, notifying that 3,926 acres of land as described in the schedule was required for a public purpose namely "development of New Capital in Mouza Laxmisagar" and accordingly the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act had been made, Along with the said notification, Government also in exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act issued another notification on the same date i. e. on 26th March, 1984, directing that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply in respect of the lands specified in the schedule of the notification. The petitioners assail the validity of the aforesaid two notifications inter alia on the grounds that (i) the acquisition proceeding is per se bad since the notification under Section 4 (1) does not indicate any definite public purpose for which the acquisition is sought to be made; and (ii) the requisite pre-condition for exercise of power under sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act being existence of urgency and there being no urgency, the pre-conditions for exercise of the power have not been attracted and, therefore, the notification under Annexure-1/a is liable to be struck down. During the pendency of this writ, application, Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act by a notification in the Gazette dated 24th of March, 1987, the Gazette copy of which was produced before us in course of hearing. Mr. Mohanti for the petitioners contends that if the notification. under Annexure-1/a is quashed, then a declaration under Section 6 of the Act cannot be legally made without complying with Section 5a of the Act and there being admittedly no compliance of Section 5-A, the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act as well as all subsequent proceedings must be held to be invalid, inoperative and accordingly must be quashed.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate in reply to the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Mohanti for the petitioners contends that where a big area of land

is acquired for a public purpose and the purpose is as stated in the notification for development of the New Capital, there is no vagueness in the same and, therefore, the notification under Section 4 (1) does not suffer from any ambiguity or vagueness. So far as urgency of notification is concerned, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, the question of urgency is not justiciable and Government having applied its mind and having formed the requisite opinion with regard to urgency bona fide, the same cannot be challenged in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to him, urgency of an acquisition under Ss. 17 (1) and (4) is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and it is not open to the Court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts. In that view of the matter, the notification under Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act cannot be said to be invalid. So far as the declaration made under Section 6 is concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that there has been some time-gap between the notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration under Section 6, but that by itself will not invalidate the declaration made under Section 6 particularly when the grounds and circumstances for such delay have already been indicated in the affidavit filed by the opposite parties.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the correctness of the rival submi