R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions challenge the same land acquisition of two different survey members. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 3u-1-1986 on the ground that the lands mentioned therein were likely to be needed for public purpose namely for increasing the refining capacity of Gujarat Refinery and its allied services. Large number of survey numbers totalling to about 126 Acres of land were notified including Survey Nos. 72/1 and 73/1 (Acres 2-27 gunthas) belonging to these two petitioners admeasuring 66 Ares 77 sq. mts. and 37 Ares 43 sq. mts. respectively. After conducting enquiry under Sec. 5a of the Act and after considering report under Sec. 5a the Government of Gujarat issued Sec. 6 notification on 5-6-1986 notifying the entire land of 126 Acres notified under Sec. 4 as likely to be needed for the public purpose. In the same notification it was also stated that the requisition of the said lands is urgently necessary. It was further directed under Sec. 17 (1) of the Act that the Special Laud Acquisition Officer shall on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice relating to the said lands under Sec. (11) take possession of all the lands specified in the notification. Pursuant thereto possession of the land was taken on 14-11-1986 and award was published on 15 The award is a consent award in respect of all the other land owners of the acquired land excepting the present two petitioners whose land admeasures 2 Acres 27 Gunthas. ( 2 ) THE acquisition is sought to be challenged on the ground that the procedure under Sec. 5a is not followed and even though the petitioners had not filed any objections under Sec. 5a of the Act it was the duty of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider all the relevant questions and environmental aspects. It is submitted that there is non-application of mind to the relevant questions i. e. environmental aspects excessivements of the acquisition and acquisition of fertile agricultural lands. It is also pointed out that the land of Survey No. 66 was also notified under Sec. 4 of the Act as likely to be needed for the public purpose. It is submitted that there is non-application of mind to the relevant questions i. e. environmental aspects excessivements of the acquisition and acquisition of fertile agricultural lands. It is also pointed out that the land of Survey No. 66 was also notified under Sec. 4 of the Act as likely to be needed for the public purpose. However a part of the said land was not acquired under Sec. 6 notification and was released from acquisition whereas the land of the petitioners is acquired and therefore there is violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that there is no satisfaction of the Government regarding the urgency and simultaneous issuance of Secs. 4 and 6 notification is illegal. ( 3 ) AS far as the petitioners are concerned they have not filed any objections under Sec. 5a of the Act and notification under Sec. 6 came to be issued after considering the report under Sec. 5a on 30-6-1986. There is no infirmity in the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even though the objections are not filed by the petitioners the Land Acquisition Officer is under a duty to consider all the relevant aspects and come to his own conclusion about the genuineness of the public purpose suitability of land for such purpose and whether it is excessive or not and other relevant aspects. All these aspects have been considered. In any case the petitioners have not filed any objections and they cannot make any grievance that objections are not considered and they have not been given any opportunity of hearing. It has been pointed out in the affidavit reply filed on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation-respondent No. 3 that the capacity of Gujarat Refinery is about 8 7 Million Tons per annum of crude oil and this Refinery is now setting up a new project called Gujarat Hydro Cracker Project which is taken up as a part of extension of Gujarat Refinery which is the largest Refinery in the country productionwise the Hydro Cracker Project is a project of great national importance meant to meet the demands of valuable petroleum products and this project is first of its kind in the country and it is monitored at the highest level in the Government. It is also stated that the Land Acquisition Officer after following due procedure and after inviting objections under Sec. 5a of the Act came to the conclusion that the lands mentioned in Sec. 4 notification were in fact needed for the public purpose and the Government being satisfied about the same has issued Sec. 6 notification ( 4 ) AS regards urgency it is stated that to meet with the increasing demand for the petroleum products the Refinery is to be expanded mainly to absorb the increase in production of North Gujarat crude which is very heavy and therefore it is necessary to install additional secondary processing facilities at Gujarat Refinery for upgrading the large quantity of heavy residues that will result from the increased processing of such crude. These facilities are estimated to cost about Rs. 620 crores and have been approved by the Government of India and scheduled for completion on top most priority basis. Considering the urgency its national importance and its timely completion and pre-project activities which were required to be started immediately the Government was satisfied about the urgency of the acquisition and of taking over the possession of the acquired land so that this huge and critical project can be completed as per the strict schedule fixed by the Government of India and any delay in the completion of this project would be greatly detrimental to the national interest. Looking to this urgency the Government came to the conclusion that this was a case where the urgency clause should be applied. ( 5 ) IT is thus clear that there is proper application of mind to the relevant aspects and the Government has come to the subjective satisfaction about the need and urgency of acquisition of these lands for the public purpose. It is also mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply that Development of a Green Belt is an important critical and integral part of the project as per the requirements of the Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests (Department of Environment ). Similar is the requirement of Gujarat Pollution Control Board of maintaining Green Belt of atleast 100 metre wide to help preservation of the overall quality of environment. Similar is the requirement of Gujarat Pollution Control Board of maintaining Green Belt of atleast 100 metre wide to help preservation of the overall quality of environment. It is also pointed out that having regard to the security aspect Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) means the security arrangments of the plants of Gujarat Refinery and a compound wall is required to be constructed around the total area under acquisition for the safety and security. Moreover as per the requirement of CISF no private land should be allowed to be retained adjacent to the plant site in order on ensure proper safety and security of the plant. Thus having regard to all these aspects of the public purpose including security and environment which are the part of the project it is clear that the acquired land is not in excess of the requirement. Annexure to the affidavit-in-reply shows that the acquired land of 126 Acres is one compact block to the north of the road. Out of this compact area of 126 Acres all the land owners have not only consented to the acquisition but have also consented to the award barring these two petitioners who own small pieces of land admeasuring 2 Acres 27 Gunthas. It is to be noted that the acquired land is adjacent to the existing lands of Gujarat Refinery and these adjacent lands are required for the purpose of increasing refining capacity of Gujarat Refinery and its allied services. No factual or legal ground is made out to interfere with the acquisition. The fertility of the land of the petitioners is no bar to such acquisition. ( 6 ) AS regards discrimination vis-a-vis the land owner of Survey No. 66 the allegation is factually incorrect. The entire compact block to the north of Koyali Bajuwa road is notified under Sec. 4 as well as under Sec. 6 and no part of Survey No 66 which was included in Sec. 4 notification is excluded in Sec. 6 notification. The part of Survey No. 66 which is not acquired is not notified under Sec. 4. Section 4 notification has notified only 61 Ares 71 sq. mts. of Survey No. 66 and the same area of Survey No. 66 is included in Sec. 6 notification. Thus there is no release of any lands as alleged by the petitioners and therefore the allegation of such a release is factually incorrect. Section 4 notification has notified only 61 Ares 71 sq. mts. of Survey No. 66 and the same area of Survey No. 66 is included in Sec. 6 notification. Thus there is no release of any lands as alleged by the petitioners and therefore the allegation of such a release is factually incorrect. Even if some land is released being regard to the objections under Sec. 5a the notification of the Government about the need for acquisition a land is not vitiated and it does not furnish a ground for release of rest of the lands if rest of the lands are in fact required for the public purpose. ( 7 ) THE notification dated 5-6-1986 which notified that the lands needed for public purpose also notified that it is urgently needed and the directions were also issued under Sec. 17 (1) of the Act that on expiration of 15 days from the publication of notice under Sec. 9 (1) the Land Acquisition Officer shall take possession of the acquired lands. There is no infirmity in such declaration of urgency and application of Sec. 17 (1) of the Act. The declaration is consistent with the provisions of Secs. 16 and 17 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Hakim Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1970 Allahabad 151 wherein it has been observed that it is not possible to issue a direction under Sec. 17 (1) of the Act alongwith notification under Sec. 4 and it can be issued only subsequent to the issuance of declaration under Sec. 6. It is submitted that contrary to this observation of Allahabad High Court that Sec. 17 (1) notification could be issued subsequent to the issuance of declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act in the present case both having issued simultaneously in one notification it is bad in law. That judgment has not laid down any such principle. In fact in that case the question was whether notification under Sec. 17 (4) can be issued even if notification under Sec. 17 (1) has not already been issued and the Court came to the conclusion that the action under Sec. 17 (1) could be taken after notification under Secs. 4 and 6 and notices under Sec. 9 (1) have been-issued. 4 and 6 and notices under Sec. 9 (1) have been-issued. Therefore it is clear that Sec. 17 (1) applies as soon as the Government is satisfied that the land is needed for public purpose and is needed urgently. Ordinarily such satisfaction is part of the same process of satisfaction and there cannot be any objection for recording such satisfaction by one notification. In the present case Sec. 6 notification notifies that the Government has come to the conclusion that the land is needed for public purpose and then also recorded that it is urgently needed. The further direction which has been given is clearly consistent and in accordance with Sec. 17 (1) of the Act. Thus the direction does not enables the Land Acquisition Officer to take the possession immediately but he is directed to take possession only after issuance of notice under Sec. 9 (1) of the Act. There is no infirmity in such directions. The judgment of Allahabad High Court does not lay down any law on this point. We are fully satisfied that Secs. 6 and 17 (1) notification which has been issued as one notification is legal and valid and there is no infirmity in the same. ( 9 ) THESE were the only contentions raised. All of them fail and hence both these petitions are dismissed. Interim relief vacated. ( 10 ) AT the request of Mr. Pranav G. Desai interim relief to continue for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners to move the Supreme Court. Rule discharged. .