N. N. Goswamy,j. ( 1 ) THE challangs in this petition is to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 28. 9. 1987whereby the land of the petitioner bearing Khasla No. 80/2, measuring 3bighas situated in village Khichripur has been acquired. The contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notification includes theapplication of Section 17 without narrating the urgency. The notification isin the following language : "no. F. 8 (35)/78-LANDB (I): Whereas it appears to the Lt. Governordelhi that the Land is likely to be required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, for planned Development of Delhi , it is hereby notified that the landin the locality described below is likely to be required for the abovepurpose. This notification is made under the provisions of Section 4of the Land Acquisition Act, to all whom it may concern. In exercise of the power conferred by the aforesaid section,the Lt. Governor, is pleased to authorise the officer for the timebeing engaged in the undertaking with their servants and workmento enter upon and survey any land in the locality and do all otheracts required or permitted by that Section. The Lt. Governor being of the opinion that provisions ofsub-Section (i) of Section 17 of the said act are applicable to thisland, is further pleased under Sub-Section 4 of the said Section todirect that the provisions of Section ? shall not apply". ( 2 ) IT is time that the notification does not give any reason invokingthe provisions of Section 17 and this case is clearly covered by thedecision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the. case of "doraphalauli v. State of Punjab and Others. , AIR 1979 SC 1594 . In the said case,it has been laid down that the right of a person having any interest in theproperty to file an objection U/s 5-Aof the Act should not be interferedwithin such a casual of cavalier manner. It has further been held that thenotification must mention that there is urgency and only then the provisions can be invoked. In the present case, as we have already indicated thereis no such mention and as such following the decision of their Lordships, wehave no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the notification cannotbe sustained. Consequently, the rule is made absolute and the impugnednotification dated 28. 9. In the present case, as we have already indicated thereis no such mention and as such following the decision of their Lordships, wehave no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the notification cannotbe sustained. Consequently, the rule is made absolute and the impugnednotification dated 28. 9. 1987 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.