The Government is justified in dispensing with the inquiry under S. 5a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if the land is required urgently for a public purpose.

( 1 ) FOR the planned Industrial Development in district Mathura through the Uttar Pradesh State, Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , Kanpur, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification dated 14-10-1988 under S. 4 read with S. 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This notification was published in the U. P. Gazette Extra Ordinary of 15-10-1988 and was also published in two Daily newspapers of Hindi on 12-11-1988 and 30-11-1988. By this notification large number of plots including three plots of the petitioner were proposed to be acquired for the aforesaid purpose. As the Government was of the opinion that the provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Act were applicable to the said land, as it was required urgently for the Planned Industrial Development in district Mathura, it directed to disperse with the inquiry under S. 5a of the Act. The Government, on 1-4-1989 issued the notification under S. 6 of the Act. Thereafter notices were issued to the petitioner on 19-6-1989.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the notification dated 14-10-1988 under S. 4, notification dated 1-4-1989 under S. 6 and notices dated 19-4-1989 under S. 9 (3) of the Act. The petitioner has primarily challenged the notification under S. 4 of the Act on the ground that inquiry under S. 5a of the Act should not have been dispensed with, as it was not a case of urgency. The petitioner has supported this argument on the following three grounds; (1) correspondence and negotiation before the notification under S. 4 of the Act, (ii) gap of time between the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act and (iii) Planned Industrial Development is an ordinary purpose, and as such S. 17 (4) of the Act should not be applied.

( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the Uttar Pradesh State, Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. , was negotiating with the villagers in question from 1985-87 and was also making correspondence with the State for necessary notifications under the Act Petitioners contention is that about a year has been wasted in negotiation and correspondence before the notification under S. 4 of the Act, as such it cannot be said that the matter of acquisition was of any urgency. We cannot agree with this submission. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1984 SC 1721 has laid down that pre-notification delay would not render invocation of urgency provisions bad and illegal.

( 4 ) SO far as the second argument relating to the gap of time between the two notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act were concerned, we are of the opinion that there is no delay in issuing the notification under S. 6 of the Act. notification under S. 4 of the Act was published in U. P. Gazette on 15-10-1988 and it was published in the newspapers of 12-11-1988 and 30-11-1988, notification under S. 6 of the Act, as such, was published on 1-4-1989, which was just after four months counted from 30-11-1988. Period of four months taken by the Government for publishing the notification under S. 6 of the Act cannot be said to be unreasonable.

( 5 ) SO far as the third argument to the effect that the Planned Industrial Development cannot be said to be the public purpose, which required urgent section is concerned, it also lacks force. Unemployment is increasing day by day and position is becoming acute and unless State can quickly provide avenues for employment the whole social order might be adversely affected. Establishment of Industries is one of the important means for providing employment to the people. Industrial development, as such is one of the public purposes, which are to be executed with utmost urgency so as to provide opportunities for employment and reduce the social tension in the society. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajbali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 All 78 has upheld dispensing of the inquiry under S. 5a of the Act for the purpos