JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - The petitioners have by means of this writ petition assailed the validity of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of certain land situate in the town of Orai, District Jalaun. The petitioners claim to be owners of a part of this land measuring 0.46 acres. 2. The relevant facts are that under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a notification dated 13-7-1977 was published on 16th July, 1977 in the Gazette, stating that the land mentioned in the Schedule thereto was needed for construction of Stores and Workshop in the District of Jalaun. The notification further recited that the Governor being of the opinion that the case was one of urgency to which the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 17 were applicable, was further pleased to direct under sub-sec. (4) of S. 17 that the provisions of S. 5-A of the said Act shall `not apply. By another notification dated 22-9-1977, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh declared under S. 6 of the Act that he was satisfied that the land was needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Stores and Workshop in the District of Jalaun. The notification went on to declare further that the Governor being satisfied that the case was one of urgency directed the Collector Jalaun to take possession of the land in question under section 9(1) though no award had been made under S. 11 within 15 days from the publication of the said notification. 3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing both the aforesaid notifications. The sole point urged in support of this petition is that the purpose for which the land is being sought to be acquired was not such as to justify dispensing with the enquiry contemplated under S. 5-A. It was submitted that there was no such urgency as to warrant denial to the petitioners and the other affected persons by the notification an important right conferred under S. 5-A namely, that of filing an objection against the proposal to acquire the land. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the above contention. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the above contention. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in which it has been asserted that the Rigs Division is a Government Department of the Irrigation Branch created for ensuring the development of the irrigation facilities in Bundelkhand Division, Jalaun District falls within this Division. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has established a new Rigs Division in the District of Jalaun having its headquarters at Orai. The Department has been created for undertaking the execution of a plan for drilling and development of tube-well in the area. This Department has various costly materials for drilling and development of tube-wells such as Rigma Chinese compressors, tools and plants, pipes and other costly materials for storing for which land was urgently needed. Land was also needed for construction of a workshop near the stores for repairs of these machines. The Government of India had sanctioned 19 tube-wells for the area and another 24 tube-wells had been sanctioned under the State plan for that year in the District of Jalaun. The entire plan of construction of suitable stores and workshop for the aforesaid purpose had to be completed within a limited time as there was likelihood of a huge grant given by the Government of India for the purpose lapsing. Further the irrigation work mentioned above was of a pressing nature having regard to the demand for proper and immediate irrigation facilities in the area in question. It was to achieve this objective that the Rigs Division approached the Collector of Jalaun for immediately providing some suitable site. Keeping in view the availability of 24 hours' supply of power near the land in question and is overall suitability, the same was selected for acquisition. The Government took into consideration the aforesaid facts and came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which the procedure laid down under S. 5A should be dispensed with. 5. We have no reason to doubt the correctness on the aforesaid assertions. On the facts mentioned above it is apparent that the decision of the Government to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A cannot possibly be castigated as arbitrary or unjustified. 5. We have no reason to doubt the correctness on the aforesaid assertions. On the facts mentioned above it is apparent that the decision of the Government to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A cannot possibly be castigated as arbitrary or unjustified. The purpose as elaborated in the counter-affidavit undoubtedly indicates that there was real and genuine urgency, and was such as could legitimately form the basis of an opinion that it was a case of that degree of urgency in which the enquiry under S. 5-A might be dispensed with. The task of construction of Stores and Workshop for the Rigs Division where expensive and sophisticated equipment and accessories worth rupees sixty to seventy lakhs could be immediately stored, and, the machines, repaired on the spot for implementing a time-bound scheme of drilling nearly 42 tube-wells in the area, was undoubtedly one of demonstrable urgency. 6. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the decision of the Government dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A was quite in order, and, in the circumstances, entirely unexceptionable. The opinion formed by the Government, founded as it was on relevant and proper considerations, cannot, in our opinion, be assailed in these proceedings. 7. Learned counsel, however, placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1979 All CJ 105 Dr. Nanak Chandra Chaturvedi v. State decision reported in the same volume at page 163 Smt. Manohari Devi Balwal v. State of U.P. in support of the contention that the Government was unjustified in dispensing with the formalities contemplated under S. 5-A. 8. We find both these two decisions distinguishable on facts. In the case of Dr. Nanak Chandra Chaturvedi v. State decision reported in the same volume at page 163 Smt. Manohari Devi Balwal v. State of U.P. in support of the contention that the Government was unjustified in dispensing with the formalities contemplated under S. 5-A. 8. We find both these two decisions distinguishable on facts. In the case of Dr. Nanak Chandra Chaturvedi (supra) the position was that though the Government had taken the decision to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A on 24th July, 1978, the notification under Sections 4 and 6 was not published until the 19th of Aug, 1978, and despite a specific challenge by the petitioners in that behalf no explanation was forthcoming from the acquiring authority as to why when the Government itself delayed publication of notification under S. 4 by more than one month after it took the decision to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A, it was not possible to give to the affected persons the opportunity to file objections under S. 5-A. It was contended that on these facts the decision of the Government to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A was ex facie indefensible. The contention was upheld by the Bench on the ground that despite a challenge, the respondent-acquiring authority did not place any material before the Court to enable it to judge whether it was really a case of urgency. 9. In the present case the position is entirely different. Here in the counter, affidavit the respondents have set out facts in considerable detail which lead to the irresistible conclusion that the case is really one of urgency and that there has not been any such time-lag between the decision of the Government to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A and the publication of the notification under S. 4. Further, Nanak Chandra's was a case in which land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a market yard for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti in the district of Ghaziabad, while in the present case the purpose is undeniably one demanding immediate action. The decision in Dr. Nanak Chandra's case, 1979 All CJ 105 hence lends no support to the petitioner. 10. Moreover, the Bench deciding the case of Dr. The decision in Dr. Nanak Chandra's case, 1979 All CJ 105 hence lends no support to the petitioner. 10. Moreover, the Bench deciding the case of Dr. Nanak Chandra Chaturvedi itself observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in these matters, and, that, in the final analysis, it will depend on the facts of each case whether there is really that degree of urgency which may provide a valid basis for arriving at the conclusion that enquiry under S. 5-A may be dispensed with. 11. In the present case we are satisfied that there was real and pressing urgency on the basis of which the Government could reasonably have formed the opinion that the enquiry under S. 5-A should be dispensed with. The other decision cited above, namely, 1979 All CJ 163 is equally distinguishable. In that case the public purpose indicated was establishment of an industrial estate and further there was an unjustified time-lag between the decision of the Government to dispense with the enquiry under S. 5-A and publication of notification under S. 4 of the Act. Quite obviously such a purpose could not be characterised as one of that degree of urgency which may legitimately warrant dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A. Further, in the present case, it has not been established that there is any such unexplained interregnum between the decision of the Government dispensing with the enquiry under S. 5-A and the publication of notification under S. 4. 12. Taus, we find no merit in the only point urged in this petition. 13. The result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.