The sequence of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not mandatory, and the Government's decision to dispense with the requirement of Section 5-A is valid if it is based on material indicating urgency.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises a question as to the interpretation of Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (as it stands after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 ). The contention urged in support of the petition by the learned counsel was that if the Collector causes public notice of the substance of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act after the publication thereof in the official gazette and two daily newspapers, the entire proceedings under Section 4 (1) would be completely invalidated. We have to consider the correctness of this submission. Before, however, we examine the contention we may briefly set out the essential facts.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to be tenure-holders of the various plots situate in villages Mandola and Nanu, District Ghaziabad. These plots are among the numerous plots which are the subject-matter of the impugned notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The notifications are dated respectively February 25, 1988 and July 7, 1988. The notifications state that the land mentioned therein was urgently needed for a public purpose, namely, the construction by the national Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. of a 400 KV Sub-Station and staff quarters. The respondents assert that in connection with the construction of the said substation, it was proposed to acquire a total area of 109. 6625 acres of land situate in the aforesaid two villages of district Ghaziabad. The project in pursuance of which the land was sought to be acquired was designed to transmit and regulate the supply of electricity of 400 KV to the northern region of the State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Haryana, Union Territory of Delhi, State of Punjab, State of Rajasthan and a portion of the State of himachal Pradesh. It is claimed that, the project was of great national importance undertaken to cater to the needs of electricity to the vast region covering the aforesaid States. The notification dated February 25, 1988 issued under Section 4 (1) was published in the two daily newspapers having circulation in the concerned locality on March 10, 1988 and in the official gazette on March 26, 1988. The public notice of the substance of the notification was given by the Collector at convenient places in the said locality on March 8, 1988. In the notification dated February 25, 1988 issued under Section 4 (1) it was also stated that on account of the urgency of the matter the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act shall not apply. Thereafter a notification dated July 7, 1988 was issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act stating that the Government was satisfied that the land mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 (1) was needed for the, aforesaid public purpose. This notification was duly published in the official, gazette, two local newspapers and by means of a public notice given by the Collector, respectively on August 13, 1988, July 19, 1988 and July 21, 1988.

( 3 ) IT appears that in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications possession was taken by the State Government through the Special Land Acquisition Officer over about 70% of the area of the land Acquired thereunder. The possession memos dated December 7, 1988 are on record. Some of the affected landholders, however, resisted and filed this petition on August 5, 1988. In the petition the validity of the aforesaid notification was assailed initially on two grounds. First, that the respondents had not caused any public notice of the substance of the notifications issued under Section 4 (1) and (6) at convenient places in the locality. Second, that there was no such urgency as to justify doing away with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. In the course of arguments, however, and after receiving copies of the affidavits filed by the respondents the learned counsel did not press the first point. He, however, submitted that the notification issued under Section 4 (1) was not published in the