Urgency power in land acquisition upheld for public housing, with Section 5-A inquiry dispensed with absent mala fides.

Urgency power to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry was upheld where land was acquired for urgent public housing for weaker sections, because the Government's subjective satisfaction as to immediate possession was entitled to weight unless tainted by mala fides or colourable exercise of power. Administrative delay before or after notification did not by itself negate urgency, and housing for the poor, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was treated as a pressing public purpose linked to constitutional obligations of shelter and social justice. The Article 21 challenge failed because compulsory acquisition for a public purpose, with statutory compensation and solatium, was not unlawful deprivation of livelihood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the invocation of the urgency power to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for housing the weaker sections was valid, and whether such acquisition violated the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry depends on the appropriate Government's subjective satisfaction that immediate possession is necessary, and that satisfaction is entitled to weight unless vitiated by mala fides or colourable exercise of power. Housing for the poor and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was treated as a pressing public purpose and as part of the State's constitutional obligation to secure shelter and social justice. Pre-notification and post-notification delay by officials did not by itself negate urgency, because delay may in fact intensify the need for acquisition. The challenge based on Article 21 was rejected because compulsory acquisition for a public purpose, accompanied by statutory compensation and solatium, does not amount to unlawful deprivation of livelihood.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 17(4) and the dispensation of the Section 5-A inquiry were upheld, and the plea based on Article 21 failed.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were sustained as a valid exercise of statutory power for a public purpose, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where land is acquired for an urgent public housing purpose, the Government's subjective satisfaction to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry will not be interfered with absent mala fides, and administrative delay does not by itself destroy urgency or render the acquisition invalid.

---