JUDGMENT : R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The question which arises in this writ petition is whether the respondents were justified in invoking Section 17 and dispensing with the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. FOR constructing Laboratory for U. P. Council Sugarcane Research and Breeding Institute, Deoria, Cane Department requested the collector, Deoria for acquiring 6.41 acres land of plot no. 27 belonging to the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the land). The Collector by a letter dated 17-5- 1979 requested the Government of U. P. for acquiring the land and for issuance of Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 of the Act. Along with this letter, Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 and Section 6 were also sent to the Government. The Government appears to have agreed with the decision for acquiring the land, but asked the Collector about the quantum of compensation which will be required to be paid for the land. The question of compensation was not settled for several years, as the Cane Department was not willing to pay the compensation suggested by the Collector. All this resulted is non-publication of Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act. Ultimately, a notice dated 17-7-1985 (under Section 4 of the Act was published in the locality regarding the acquisition of the land. The petitioners thereafter, filed a writ petition no. 11912 of 1985 -before this Court. The Government filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition in which it was stated that Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have already been published for acquiring the land and notices under Section 9 have also been issued to the petitioners. This Court in view of the averments made by the State in its counter affidavit, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant passage from the judgment of this Court dated 9-8-1988 is extracted below : "............it has been asserted in the counter affidavit that notifications. under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have already been published in the Gazette by the respondents. Indeed the assertion is that a notice under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has also been published as required by law." In view of these assertions of the State in its counter affidavit, the writ petition was dismissed. Indeed the assertion is that a notice under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act has also been published as required by law." In view of these assertions of the State in its counter affidavit, the writ petition was dismissed. It appears that after the dismissal of the writ petition, petitioners made inquiry and then came to know that the State Government has filed a false affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition before this Court, as the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have not been - published so far. Petitioners accordingly filed another writ petition No. 17615 of 1988 before this Court mentioning therein about the false affidavit filed by the State in the earlier writ petition and non-publication of any Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. This Court on 7-9-1988 passed an interim order in this writ petition so as to protect possession of the petitioners over the land. Thereafter a Notification dated 27-12-1988 under Section 4 read with Section 17 was published by the Government in the U. P. Gazette dated 30-12-1988 for acquiring the land. The Notification was published in news papers of 19-1-1989 and in the locality on 21-1-1989, subsequently. Notification dated 27-3-1989 under Section 6 of the Act was also published by the State Government in the U. P. Gazette dated 27-3- 1989. It was published in news papers dated 7-4-1989 and 8-4-1989. Notices under Section 9 have also been issued to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, challenging the aforesaid notifications and the notices. 3. AT the admission stage parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and Government has produced original records before us. We have beard the learned counsel for both the parties and the writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 4. AS the Government has applied the provisions of Section 17 and has dispensed with the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act, the question for consideration is whether the Government was justified in applying Section 17 and eliminating the summary proceedings under Section 5-A, depriving the petitioners of the right to file objections. 4. AS the Government has applied the provisions of Section 17 and has dispensed with the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act, the question for consideration is whether the Government was justified in applying Section 17 and eliminating the summary proceedings under Section 5-A, depriving the petitioners of the right to file objections. It is not mere urgency that can permit the Government to apply the provisions of Section 17 but urgency should be of the nature so as to eliminate the summary proceedings under Section 5-A. In Narain Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183 the Supreme Court has laid down that :- "The mind of the officer or authority concerned has to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5-A 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 5-A which has to be considered." 5. In paragraphs 18 and 25 of the writ petition, the petitioners have made averments regarding the non-application of mind by the Government to the question about dispensing with the proceedings under Section 5-A. A counter affidavit has been filed by one Sri Ram Prasad, who is Ahalmad in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoria on behalf of the Government. Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, Paragraphs 12. 14 and 19 of this counter affidavit contain a reply of paragraphs 18 and 25 of the writ petition. These paragraphs 12, i4 and 19 of the counter affidavit are reproduced below : "12. That the contents of paragraph 15 of the writ petition are absolutely incorrect and denied. Since the building of the respondent no. 3 is situated just adjacent to the acquired land as such it is urgently needed by the respondent no. 3 for expansion of laboratory building for development of research work. 14. That the contents of paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition are incorrect and denied. Suitable reply has already been given in the paragraph 12 of this counter affidavit, since the acquired land is urgently needed by the respondent no. 3 as such the notification under Section 17 was published in the Gazette dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 19. Suitable reply has already been given in the paragraph 12 of this counter affidavit, since the acquired land is urgently needed by the respondent no. 3 as such the notification under Section 17 was published in the Gazette dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. 19. That the contents of paragraph 25 of the writ petition are incorrect and denied. Since publication under Section 17 was made, the provisions of Section 5-A has been dispensed with due to the urgency of the acquisition of the land." 6. From the perusal of these paragraphs, it is clear that the authority concerned has issued Notification under Section 17 merely on the ground of urgency and has not applied its mind to the question as to whether the urgency is of such a nature, which requires dispensing with the proceedings under Section 5-A. We have also perused the original record produced before us, and from its perusal, it is clear that the authorities did not apply mind to the necessity for dispensing with the proceedings under Section 5-A. FROM the counter affidavit and the original record, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked and proceedings under Section 5-A of the act were dispensed with merely on the ground of urgency. But the question whether the urgency is of the nature of as to eliminate the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act was completely omitted from being considered by the authorities. The authority concerned, as such failed to apply its mind to the relevant consideration and the acquisition proceedings accordingly stand vitiated. It appears from the record that decision to acquire the land was taken in 1979 but the Notification under Section 4/17 was not published as the Government wanted to know the amount of compensation for the land. We accordingly directed the State to file supplementary counter affidavit indicating reasons due to which Notifications under the Act were not issued even though decision to acquire the land was taken in 1979. We accordingly directed the State to file supplementary counter affidavit indicating reasons due to which Notifications under the Act were not issued even though decision to acquire the land was taken in 1979. The Government has, in pursuance of our direction, filed a supplementary counter affidavit in which the reasons for delay in publication of the Notification under the act are stated to be the correspondence between the Collector and the Government on the one hand and the Cane Department on the other band regarding the quantum of compensation, which would be required to be deposited and paid to the petitioners. The correspondence continued right from 1979 to 1985 because Cane Department was not willing to pay compensation, determined by the Collector. It is true that pre notification delay cannot render the invocation of Section 17 as invalid, but this cannot give licence to the authorities concerned to be negligent regarding taking of a decision or publication of notification. 7. After the decision to acquire is taken by the authorities, they are expected to act quickly by publishing the requisite notifications under the Act. Facts and circumstances of this case fully demonstrate in action and carelessness on the part of the authorities. Depriving a person of his property without giving him any opportunity to make his representation is a serious matter and it should, be in rare cases, where urgency is of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5-A are to be dispensed with, that the Government should invoke Section 17. Dispensing with the proceedings under Section 5-A should not be gone in routine manner. 8. We accordingly allow the writ petition with costs and quash the Notifications dated 27-12-1988 and 27-3-1989 under Section 4/17 and Section 6 of the Act respectively. Petition allowed.