Urgency acquisition power upheld where land was needed for rehabilitation of displaced persons and delay threatened the public project.

Urgency power under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and dispensation of the Section 5A inquiry under Section 17(4) were examined in the context of land acquisition for extension of a rehabilitation site for displaced persons. The record showed that the authority considered the time-bound nature of the dam project, the earlier acquisition of part of the land, and the delay caused by objections to the remaining land. Judicial review was limited to whether relevant factors were considered and whether the decision was taken for a public purpose and without mala fides. On that basis, the invocation of urgency and the exclusion of the Section 5A inquiry were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the invocation of the urgency power under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A under Section 17(4), in aid of acquisition for rehabilitation of displaced persons, was vitiated by non-application of mind, mala fides, or arbitrariness.

Analysis: The acquisition was for extension of a rehabilitation site for oustees of a time-bound dam project, and the material placed before the authority showed that part of the land had already been acquired while the remaining land was delayed because of objections. The record reflected consideration not only of urgency for early possession but also of the need to avoid delay caused by the Section 5A inquiry. The scope of interference in judicial review is limited where the Government has applied its mind to the relevant factors, and the Court will not substitute its own view on urgency or on the choice of land so long as the decision is taken for a public purpose and is not mala fide.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) was upheld, and the challenge to dispensation of the Section 5A inquiry failed.

---