Urgency in land acquisition requires real necessity, not routine invocation, before denying the Section 5A hearing.

Urgency powers under Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may dispense with the Section 5A(2) hearing only where there is demonstrable real and pressing urgency supported by relevant material and conscious application of mind. A project's public purpose, standing alone, does not justify excluding the landowner's right to object. On the facts described, the long delay in progressing the sub-station proposal and the absence of material showing immediate need indicated mechanical invocation of the urgency clause, so denial of the Section 5A inquiry was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the urgency power under Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be invoked to dispense with the hearing contemplated by Section 5A(2) for acquisition of land for a sub-station project.

Analysis: The extraordinary power to dispense with the inquiry and hearing under Section 5A can be exercised only when there is a real and pressing urgency that cannot brook delay of even a few weeks or months. The record showed that the proposal for the sub-station had been under consideration for years, yet the competent authority did not produce material showing that the project required immediate possession in such a manner that the statutory hearing would frustrate the public purpose. The long interval between the inception of the proposal and the notification, together with the absence of a conscious application of mind to the need for excluding Section 5A, indicated that the urgency clause had been invoked mechanically. A public purpose, by itself, does not justify exclusion of the landowner's right to object and be heard.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) was not justified, and the acquisition could not proceed by denying the appellants the inquiry under Section 5A(2). The challenge succeeded in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The urgency provisions in land acquisition may be used to dispense with the Section 5A hearing only on a demonstrable case of real urgency supported by relevant material and conscious application of mind; mere public importance of the project or administrative delay does not suffice.

---