The judgment established the importance of the appropriate Government forming an opinion and applying its mind before dispensing with the provision of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.:-

45 Bhumidhars have preferred the instant writ petition for the quashing of the notification dated 18th January, 2010, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are Bhumidhars of the land situate at Mauja Sherpur, Pargana Pachhwadoon, District Dehradun. A Notification No. 133/1/2010-04(3)/25/09 dated 18th January, 2010 was issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the acquisition of 17.9343 hectares for the construction of 400/220 KV Sub Station. In the said notification, it was contended that the land was urgently required for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a Sub Station and that in view of the pressing urgency, it was necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and therefore, by exercising the powers under subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act, the provision of Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. According to the petitioner, approximately 85 families of the farmers would be affected by the said acquisition. It was also alleged that the construction and the commissioning of the Sub Station would take between 2 to 2½ years. It was also stated that pursuant to the notification dated 18th January, 2 2010, the State Government published the information in the daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 19th February, 2010, i.e., after a month from the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the gazette. The contention of the petitioner is, that there was no urgency or unforeseen emergency to dispense with the enquiry as provided under Section 5-A of the Act, whereas under Section 5-A of the Act, an objection by the affected person was required to be given within 21 days. On the other hand, the construction would take about 2½ years and therefore, it was submitted that there was a total non-application of mind in dispensing with the provision of Section 5-A of the Act. It was also urged that the mere fact that the publication was made in a newspaper after one month from the date of the issuance of the notification in the Official Gazette indicates that there was no urgency on the part of the respondents in implementing the project. On these grounds, the petitioners prayed that the notification dated 18th January, 2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act be quashed. The acquiring body, namely, the State Government has filed a counter affidavit contending that after the State of Uttarakhand was created in the year 2000, the Government realized that it has no power grid of its own and even though, energy was being generated, but in the absence of a grid, the State Government was forced to transmit the power to a neighbouring State and then arrange power supply to the State of Uttarakhand through their power grid lines, and in this way, there was not only 3 wastage of line losses in the intra-State transmission or purchase of power but also led to loss of time. The State Government contented that the erection of a Sub Station/grid would be the first such grid in the State of Uttarakhand and would reduce the line losses and therefore, the project was one of public importance and urgency. To buttress the contention of the State that the project was of public importance and that the matter was one of urgency which justified the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government has annexed various documents showing correspondence between the District Magistrate, Dehradun and the Secretary, Energy, a Department of the Uttarakhand Government.

A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by the State annexing the note files, which are required to be maintained by the Energy Department under the Rules of Business framed under subclause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution. The stand of the State Government in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit is clear a