CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) 1. In all these petitions the petitioners who are some of the land owners whose lands are being acquired in accordance with the Notification published under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 17 thereof (hereinafter called the Act ). They are aggrieved by the fact that the respondent/state of karnataka common to all the petitions have invoked the power under Section 17 of the Act to dispense with a hearing required to be given to a land owner in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec 5a of the Act normally. The purpose disclosed in the notification which is at Annexure-A in Writ Petition No. 18264/87 is that the notified lands are required for the rehabilitation of shelterless people (Nirashritara Punarvasathi ). The text of the notification does not indicate who the people are who are required to be rehabilitated although in the statement of objections filed on beha!f of the respondents State of Karnataka and in the arguments advanced by the learned advocate General it is made out that the rehabilitation is of the people who are liable to be displaced on account of the acquisition of the land on the southern side of the Karwar town for the purpose of what is known as "sea Bird" Project of the Indian Navy. The lands sought to be acquired as per the notification at annexure-A afore mentioned are situate in two villages, Chittakula and Majali in karwar Taluk. The total extent of land required is 132 acres. ( 2 ) THE short questions which fall for determination in this writ petition are: whether the Government was justified in exercising its power under Section 17 and if so whether that has been exercised in accordance with the requirements of law ? ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that right to be heard while being deprived of the lands owned by them is an invaluable right conferred on them by the statute and the right cannot be taken away or treated lightly by the Government by invoking its power under Section 17 (4) of the Act. Therefore, they contend that the notification is vitiated on account of legal mala fides as there is no proper application of mind muchless any urgency for invoking the power under section 1 7 of the Act. Therefore, they contend that the notification is vitiated on account of legal mala fides as there is no proper application of mind muchless any urgency for invoking the power under section 1 7 of the Act. ( 4 ) AS earlier noticed while narrating briefly the facts, in the statement of objection filed, State Government has tried to make out a case that the "sea bird" project being a defence project must necessarily be given required priority and acquisition of thousands of acres for that project has been completed and people who have suffered the acquisition proceedings have not only received the amount awarded as compensation but also have sought in most of the cases for enhancement by seeking reference to the civil Courts but nevertheless are refusing to hand over possession of the lands acquired for the "sea Bird" project on the ground that they have no alternative place for settlement. It is further submitted that the people who are deprived of the lands for the "sea Bird" project fall into two categories. The first category of persons are agriculturists whose lands have been acquired. The second category of persons are fisherman who are living on the coast and who also require to be rehabilitated. While there is no difficulty for the Government in respect of the people who are agriculturists and who can be rehabilitated in government land available in the District elsewhere, the fishermen of families of fishermen are required to be rehabilitated only on the coastal line and therefore acquisition proposed in the aforementioned two villages of Karwar Taluk where the extent of land required is only 132 acres for that purpose The urgency is not immediately connected to the need disclosed in Section 4 (1) notification. It is connected by remote nexus with the urgency of handing over the land to the defence authorities for the project of the Indian Navy. Whether that is sufficient and whether there has been due application of mind in regard to that, there is serious doubt despite the claim made in the statement of objections. ( 5 ) COURT had called for the records and has perused the same. Whether that is sufficient and whether there has been due application of mind in regard to that, there is serious doubt despite the claim made in the statement of objections. ( 5 ) COURT had called for the records and has perused the same. Nowhere in the records is there any mention of the urgent requirement except a casual reference made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, to invoke the power under Section 17 of the Act in respect of the proposed acquisition in the aforementioned two villages. That does not fall in line with the law laid down by the supreme Court in regard to the exercise of the power by the Government under section 17 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN the case of Narayan v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC page 183 ). Supreme Court had occasion to consider in depth and detail, the conditions prerequisite to the exercise of power under section 17 (4) of the Act. That case arose out of acquisition of land proposed for development of areas for industrial and residential purposes. The invoking of the power under Section 17 and dispensing with the oral hearing under Section 5a of the Act was the ground on which the acquisition was challenged in that case also. In dealing with it the Supreme court had occasion to consider as earlier noticed the requirements of law which the appropriate Government must observe before exercising the power. They have therein held that Section 5a proceedings are summary in nature and therefore must be presumed to be expeditious proceedings. They have also held that the purpose of acquisition disclosed in the notification itself may be indicative of the urgency or the lack of it. In that case it was held that the purpose did not disclose any urgency as it was part of the normal development activity. In the instant case on hand, the purpose is not spelt out in the notification in the manner it has been stated in the statement of objections The notification barely asserts that it is required for rehabilitating those who have on shelter The urgency is made out only in the statement of objections and not in the purpose disclosed in the notification. Therefore the notification taken by itself does not disclose the purpose to be one of urgency. Therefore the notification taken by itself does not disclose the purpose to be one of urgency. On that ground itself the notification is liable to be struck down in so far as it relates to invoking power under Section 17 (4) dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5a of the Act. More than that in the afore mentioned case of Narayan, Supreme Court made a specific observation which is to the following effect:"the mind of the Officer or auhority concerned has to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5a of the act should be eliminated. It is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiry under section 5a which has to be considered section 17 (2) deals with a case in which an enquiry under Section 5a of the Act could not possibly serve any useful purpose. "if the above test is to be applied to the facts of the present case on hand, there is total lack of application of mind to that aspect of the case b/ the Officers concerned to the urgency of the acquisition as well as the need to dispense with the hearing under Section 5a of the Act in order to make up its mind under Section 17 of the Act. ( 7 ) THEREFORE this Court should have no hesitation to quash the notification in so far as it affects the rights of the land owners in regard to the denial of hearing provided under Section 5a of the Land acquisition Act. ( 8 ) IN this position, the Court is left with two alternatives. The first alternative is that the notification impugned will be read as a notification simplicitor under section 4 (1) and within 30 days from today all persons affected by the said notification may file their objections before the Special Officer, Naval base Project, karwar, and appear before him for oral hearing personally or through their Counsel on 20th May 1988 and thereafter wards proceedings will take place in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 5a and other provisions of the Act. The second alternative is to quash the entire notification and allow the State Government to make a fresh approach in regard to the urgency mentioned in the statement of objections and after due application of mind in accordance with law laid down by the Supreme court proceed to issue a fresh notification in exercise of its power under Section 17 of the Act. ( 9 ) IF the latter alternative is followed, the Court having looked into the records feels that likely injustice will be done to a large number of families in the village majali where over 55 families will be deprived of their total land holding with the result they in turn require rehabilitation elsewhere and an unending chain of acquisition of land and rehabilitation will have to be resorted to which will only complicate the issues instead of properly solving the problem on hand. Therefore court feels that the second alternative will not lead to real justice. It will be better if the objections are filed by the affected families and they are considered judiciously by the Special Officer and thereafter acquisition proceeded with or dropped as the case may be, by the Government. Therefore permitting only the first alternative this Court strikes down the impugned notification in so far as it relates to the invoking of power under section 17 of the Act and leaves the rest of the notification intact subject to the conditions prescribed while dealing with the first alternative. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Rule will issue and be made absolute in terms of the 1st alternative set out above. Orders accordingly. Writ petitions allowed. --- *** --- .