The question of urgency for the acquisition of land under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is solely for the Government to decide, and the Court will not interfere unless the opinion formed by the Government is unreasonable.

Prem Chand Pandit, J.

1. On 9-8-1962 the Punjab Government published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring about 5200 square yards of land in village Bohar in tehsil and district Rohtak. It was mentioned in this notification that this land was being acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of a Text Books Sales Depot at Rohtak. It was further stated therein that the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to direct that action under Section 17 of the Act should be taken in this case on the ground of urgency and that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply in regard to this acquisition. On that very date, another notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued wherein the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to take orders for the acquisition of the said land. Out of this land, 1542 square yards belonged to Murari Lal Gupta, who challenged the above notifications by filing a writ petition, Murari Lal Gupta V/s. State of Punjab, Civil Writ No. 1813 of 1962: (AIR 1964 Punj 477) in this Court on 21-11-1962. This petition was decided by D.K. Mahajan and Shamsher Bahadur JJ. on 26-3-1964. In the notification issued under Section 4, it was not mentioned by the State Government as to whether the acquisition had been made under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. At the time of arguments, however, learned counsel for the State took up the position that the acquisition was under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 17. In other words, the land was required for a public purpose, which in the opinion of the Government was of urgent importance. The learned Judges then examined this position and came to the conclusion that the said acquisition could not be covered by this clause. As a result, the writ petition was accepted and the impugned notifications were set aside.

2. Thereafter, on 11-6-1964, a fresh notification was issued by the Punjab Government under Section 4 of the Act. In this notification, it was made clear that the acquisition was being made under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act and the Text Books Sales Depot at Rohtak was required to be set up urgently and the provisions of Section 5-A would not apply in regard to this acquisition. On the same date, another notification under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act was issued. Murari Lal Gupta has again challenged these notifications by means of the present writ petition.

3. This petition, in the first instance, came up for hearing before Capoor and Dua JJ. on 22-4-1965. The learned Judges were of the view that since the correctness of the earlier Bench decision of this Court was being questioned, this case should be heard by a larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.

4. The validity of these notifications is being challenged on the following two grounds:-

-

(a) that the Government had not at all applied its mind and had not satisfied itself that the land sought to be acquired was waste or arable. The petitioners land was neither waste nor arable within the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. It was a building site situate within the municipal limits of Rohtak Town, abutting on the Hissar-Delhi Grand Trunk Road and opposite the Jat Heroes Memorial College. On one side of it were situate the Power House and the Government College for Boys. Towards the Delhi side were situate the buildings of the Jat School Hostel and on the back side was the Dev Colony consisting of several built houses. Thus, the petitioners land was surrounded on all sides by buildings; and

(b) that there was no urgency about the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired and, consequently, the action of the Government in depriving the petitioner of his valuable rights under Section 5-A of the Act was illegal.

5. The position of the Government with regard to the above two grounds, as is clear from the retur