JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The petitioners have prayed for quashing of notification dated 21st July, 1990 issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, Act). The petitioners, who claimed to be owners of the land which has been notified for acquisition, do not oppose the acquisition itself, they are aggrieved only by the dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Their plea is that the present is not a case of urgency and, therefore, direction under Section 17(4) of the Act contained in the notification is invalid. We are, therefore, not called upon to quash the entire notification, but only that part of it which contains the direction under Section 17(4). 2. When any land is required for public purpose, the first step towards its acquisition is issue of notification under Section 4(1). Once such notification has been issued, it becomes lawful for the concerned officials of the Government to enter upon such land and to survey it and to do other things mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 4 Under Section 5A(1), any person interested in the land can object to the proposed acquisition within 30 days after the issue of the notification. Under subsection (2) objection is to be filed .before the Collector who is to submit his recommendation to the State Government after holding enquiry, at which opportunity of hearing is to be given to the objector. If the objection is not allowed, notification of intended acquisition is issued under Section 6. After this notification has been issued, the appropriate Government is to direct the Collector to take order for acquisition of the land. Under Section 9, the Collector is required to issue notice to the interested persons calling upon them to prefer claims for compensation. Under Section 11, Collector holds enquiry into the claims preferred before him and makes his award. After award has been made, the Collector takes possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act. Such land thereupon vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. This is the normal procedure prescribed in the Act. Under this procedure, the stage for taking possession is reached only after award has been made by the Collector under Section 16 of the Act. Such land thereupon vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. This is the normal procedure prescribed in the Act. Under this procedure, the stage for taking possession is reached only after award has been made by the Collector under Section 16 of the Act. In cases of urgency, it is permissible to take possession of the land even before the award has been made. Procedure for this is prescribed in Section 17. 3. Section 17 reads as follows: 17. Special powers in cases of urgency (1) Incases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned In Section 8, subsection (1), take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a Company. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (2).............................. (3) In every case under either of the preceding subsections the Collector shall, at the time of taking possession, offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees (if any) on such land and for any other damage sustained by them caused by such sudden dispossession and not excepted in Section 24: and, in case such offer is not accepted the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for the land under the provisions herein contained. (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under Sec. 6 in respect of the land at any time after the publication to the notification under Section 4, subsection (1). From the sideheading of this section, it is apparent that the power conferred under this section is a 'special power' and contains departure from the normal Rule or procedure. From the very language of subsection (1) it is apparent that the power can be exercised only in cases of urgency. From the sideheading of this section, it is apparent that the power conferred under this section is a 'special power' and contains departure from the normal Rule or procedure. From the very language of subsection (1) it is apparent that the power can be exercised only in cases of urgency. In cases of urgency, the appropriate Government has the power to direct the Collector to take possession of the land notified for acquisition on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of the notification under Section 9(1) although no award has been made. Enquiry contemplated under Section 5A is dispensed with only when direction to that effect is issued by the State Government under subsec. (4). Direction can be issued only on formation of the opinion referred to in subsection (4) by the Government. The opinion is to be formed regarding the applicability of subsections (1) and (2) of Section 17. These two subsections apply in cases of urgency. Therefore, for issuing direction under subsection (4), the State Government has to form opinion that the case is one of urgency. 4. The impugned notification, Annexure10 shows that the land is being acquired for modernisation and expansion of the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, Maholi Unit, District Sitapur. Paragraph2 of the notification reads as follows: 2. Chunki Rajyapal Ki Rai Hai Ki Ukt Adhiniyam Ki Dhara 17 Ki Updhara (l)Ke Upbandh Ukt Bhoomi Par Lagoo Hote Hain Kyunki Ukt Bhoomi Ki Zila Sitpur Mein Uttar Pradesh Rajya Chini Nigam Limited (Rajya Sarkar Ka Upkram) Ikai Maholi Ke Adhunikaran Aur Vistar Ke Liye Atyadhik Avshyakta Hai Aur is Atyadhik Ki Drasthi Se Yah Bhi Avashyak Hai Ki Ukt Adhiniyam Ki Dhara 5ka Ke Adhin Janch Karne Mein Sambhavit Vilamb Ko Vivarjit Kiya Jay Atev Rajyapal Ukt Adhiniyam Ke Dhara 17 Ki Updhara (4) Ke adhin Yah Bhi Nirdesh Dete Hain Ki Ukt Adhiniyam Ki Dhara 5ka Upbandh Lagu Nahin Honge.' The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the that formation of opinion of urgency by the State Government is not bona fide but mechanical and modernisation and expansion of the Unit cannot be matters of urgency to justify dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A. In support of this submission, he has cited AIR 1977 SC 183 , Narayan Govind Gayate etc. v. State of Maharashtra and others. In support of this submission, he has cited AIR 1977 SC 183 , Narayan Govind Gayate etc. v. State of Maharashtra and others. He has placed reliance on the observations contained in paragraphs 2, 6 to 13 and 22 of the report. 5. Learned counsel for the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited has submitted that the purpose of enquiry under Section 5A is to enable the land holder to show that there is no public purpose and, therefore, the land is not liable to be acquired. He pointed out that there is no whisper in the writ petition that the purpose for which the land is being acquired is not a public purpose. He further submitted that formation of opinion by the State Government under Section 17 is subjective and once notification contains recital of the formation of that opinion, there is no occasion for the Courts to interfere with the formation of the opinion. According to the learned counsel, recital of urgency in the notification itself is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 17. He further stated that even if there is any vagueness in the recital, the lacuna can be removed by elaboration of facts in the counter affidavit or by perusal of record by the Court. He has invited our attention to certain paragraphs of the counter affidavits for pointing out that apart from the recital in the notification, relevant facts have been brought on record through the counter affidavits. At the time of hearing, Sri Trivedi prayed that if this Court was not satisfied with the averments made in the counter affidavit, the record may be summoned from the State Government through its counsel who is appearing in the present case. Learned counsel has relied on certain portions of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and he has invited our attention to two authorities, namely, (1) AIR 1954 Madras 481, Natesa Asari v. State of Madras; and (ii) AIR 1955 Andhra Pradesh 184, V. Hari Hara Prasad v. K. Jagannadhan & another. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is based on its own facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is based on its own facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed in the present case on behalf of the State Government as well as on behalf of the Sugar Corporation. We may first examine these counter affidavits. 7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed by the Joint Secretary to Government. In paragraph5 it is stated: ........ After due enquiry it was found that the land in question was urgently needed for public purpose for the expansion and modernisation of the unit Maholi of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Unit Maholi submitted its plan and requested District Magistrate/Collector, Sitapur vide their letter dated 16121989 for requesting the State Government to employ the urgency clause and very urgently acquired the land and delivered the possession so that the modernisation and expansion of the Unit may be completed without any delay. The U.P. State Sugar Corporation, Unit Maholi submitted the necessary certificates that the land in question was very urgently needed. The Collector, Sitapur after comprehensive enquiry about the urgency, submitted report to State Government for issuing the notification under Section 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The state Government, after considering all the facts, was satisfied that it was a case in which the land was to be acquired at a very early date so that public purpose of modernisation and expansion of the Unit Maholi of State Sugar Corporation be completed. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) dispensing with proceeding under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act have been made by the State Government for the benefit of the public at large. The Central Government by notification directed the U.P. State Sugar Corporation that from the date of Letter of Intent, i.e. from 1171989 the modernisation and expansion of the Unit Maholi is to be completed within 3 years from the said date to enable to get the requisite exemption and incentive. In view of this notification of the Central Government and urgency in the matter of raising output of sugar manufacture, it was considered to be very urgent scheme to be implemented without any delay. In view of this notification of the Central Government and urgency in the matter of raising output of sugar manufacture, it was considered to be very urgent scheme to be implemented without any delay. It was not possible lo implement the scheme without early possession on the land in question. The Modernisation and expansion of the sugar unit is not only to benefit the Cane growers of the locality, it will also procure larger quantity of sugar on the low cost of production to meet the national need. (Emphasised). 8. From the above it appears that the Central Government has issued letter of intent to U.P. State Sugar Corporation under which the Corporation was entitled to certain exemptions and incentives. These exemptions and incentives were available only if the modernisation and expansion was completed within three years. The modernisation and expansion, if carried out, was to result in increasing the production of sugar and reducing cost of its production. Sugar is a commodity which is used throughout the country and increased production of sugar at lower cost was considered by the State Government to be national need. To same effect is averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, The facts stated in these counter affidavits have not been controverted by the petitioners. In our opinion, on these undisputed facts, the State Government cannot be accused of forming opinion without any basis and mechanically. These facts do make out a case of urgency. We make these observations without going into the question whether the Court is competent to examine the satisfaction of the State Government. 9. In A. Natesa Asari's case (supra) the Madras High Court has observed in paragraph3 of the report thus: We are of opinion that whether an urgency exists or not is a matter solely for the determination of the Government and it is not a matter for judicial review, In V. Harihara Prasad's case (Supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has stated in paragraph 26 as follows: That all is required is that the Government must be satisfied that there is such urgency as is contemplated by Section 17(4); if they are so satisfied they are entitled to pass an order under Section 17(4) suspending the application of Section 5A. Whether an urgency exists or not is a matter solely for the determination of the Government and it is not a matter for judicial review. (Emphasised). We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed in these two cases. By the application of law contained in these authorities, the petitioners' challenge cannot be entertained. Although the petitioners have stated that direction under Section 17(4) is not bona fide, it is not the case of the petitioners that it is result of mala fides of any individual officer or officers of the State. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the formation of opinion is arbitrary or without material. The material brought on record has been indicated hereinabove. Sufficiency or otherwise of that material is not open to judicial review. 10. Even the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not lay down law contrary to the one propounded by the Madras and the Andhra Pradesh High Courts. In paragraph10 of the report in Narayan Govind Gavate (supra) their Lordships have observed as follows: 10. It is true that, in such cases, the formation of an opinion is a subjective matter as held by this Court repeatedly with regard to situations in which administrative authorities have to form certain opinions before taking actions they are empowered to take. They are expected to know better the difference between the right or wrong opinion than Courts could ordinarily on such matters. Nevertheless, that opinion has to be based upon some relevant materials in order to pass the test which Courts do impose. That test basically is: Was the authority concerned acting within the scope of its powers or in the sphere where its opinion and discretion must be permitted to have full play ? Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some material, however meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the Courts should not and will not interfere. There might, however, be cases in which the power is exercised in such an obviously arbitrary or perverse fashion, without regard to the actual and undeniable facts, or, in other words, so unreasonable as to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a Court that there has been an excess of power. There might, however, be cases in which the power is exercised in such an obviously arbitrary or perverse fashion, without regard to the actual and undeniable facts, or, in other words, so unreasonable as to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a Court that there has been an excess of power. There may also be cases where the mind of the authority concerned has not been applied at all, due to misunderstanding of the law or some other reason, to what was legally imperative for it to consider. (Emphasis supplied). The power to issue direction under Section 17(4) vests in the State Government, Accordingly the State Government while issuing the impugned notification acted within the scope of its powers. The material on which it has acted has already been indicated hereinabove. Even if that material is considered to be meagre the formation of opinion cannot be interfered with as laid down by their Lordships. We are further of the opinion that the material relied upon by the State Government in the present case is not meagre but substantial. Accordingly there is no scope for this Court to quash the notification on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even after laying down this law their Lordships did in this case uphold the judgment of the Bombay High Court which had quashed the direction given by the Maharashtra Government under Section 17(4). However, that was done on the peculiar facts of that case. On the facts of that case their Lordships drew the conclusion stated in paragraphs 3 & 5 of the report. In paragraph3 their Lordships have observed This certainly suggests that directions under Section 17(4) could have been mechanically issued in all the groups in identical terms without due application of mind to the factual requirements prescribed by law. This inference was drawn from the fact that two notifications under S. 4 reads with Section 17(4) were issued on two different dates in respect of two groups of land in identical terms and while one of the notifications was followed by notification under Section 6, the other was not so followed with the consequence that the proceedings under the other notification under Section 4(1) became invalid. If there was urgency there was no occasion to allow the notification under Section 4(1) to become invalid by not following it up with notification under Section 6. If there was urgency there was no occasion to allow the notification under Section 4(1) to become invalid by not following it up with notification under Section 6. This is the factual basis for the inference stated in paragraph3. In paragraph5 it is observed This strange course of action suggests that notification under S. 17(4) was probably made only to save the botheration of the inquiry begun under Section 5A of the Act which should and could have been conclude quite easily before 18th July, 1964. The basis for this conclusion is that apart from the two notification referred to hereinbefore a third notification was issued on the same date on which second notification was issued and it was identically worded so far as declaration and direction under Section 17(4) were concerned and seven months earlier, notification has been issued in respect of fourth group of land but in this notification no direction under Section 17(4) had been given. It was this course of events coupled with the facts relating to the first and second groups of land which led their Lordships to conclude that Section 17(4) was mechanically applied only to save the botheration of enquiry under Section 5A. Further although the existence of urgency was assailed by the petitioners, no facts were stated and no particulars were given in the counter affidavit to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the formation of opinion was based on any material whatsoever. This is apparent from the observation contained in paragraph9 of the report wherein their Lordships have observed But no facts or particulars are stated to which the mind of the Commissioner could have been applied in forming the opinion that the situation called for declarationscumdirections, under Section 17(4) of the Act, to dispense with inquiries under Section 5A of the Act in these case.'' 11. In view of the legal position discussed hereinabove we are not called upon to appraise objectively the opinion of the State Government in respect of the direction under Section 17(4). However, if we were to appraise that opinion objectively we feel that the facts brought on record do constitute urgency. The Central Government had fixed time limit within which exemptions and incentives could be availed of. Delay in acquisition of land had the prospect of Corporation losing these two benefits. The Corporation is a commercial undertaking of the State Government. However, if we were to appraise that opinion objectively we feel that the facts brought on record do constitute urgency. The Central Government had fixed time limit within which exemptions and incentives could be availed of. Delay in acquisition of land had the prospect of Corporation losing these two benefits. The Corporation is a commercial undertaking of the State Government. Every commercial organization is keen to take advantage of exemptions and incentives offered by the Government. We see nothing wrong in a public sector undertaking exhibiting similar keenness and requesting the State Government to apply the provisions of Section 17 to the present acquisition. We also see nothing wrong in the State Government accepting the request. Modernisation and expansion of Sugar Unit has been treated by the State Government as national need. This is based on the fact that modernisation and expansion will not only reduce the cost of production of sugar but will also increase the output. The facts stated in the counter affidavit and the consequences drawn there from are so apparent that it is not necessary to scan the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that modernisation and expansion alone have been treated as constituting urgency is misconceived. The counter affidavit clearly indicates the consequences of modernisation and expansion viz., lowering the cost of production and increasing the yield of sugar. These consequences have also been taken into account in issuing the direction under Section 17(4). 12. We have done the exercise of recording a factual finding only to show that the petitioners' approach to this Court was absolutely misconceived. The impugned notification specifically mentions modernisation and expansion of the Sugar Unit as the purpose for acquiring the land. The consequences of modernisation and expansion are so apparent that no counter affidavit was required to highlight them. However, these have been highlighted in the counter affidavits of the State and of the Corporation. The exercise done by us should not be understood as our accepting the submission of the petitioners' learned counsel that the opinion of urgency expressed by the Government is open to judicial review. However, these have been highlighted in the counter affidavits of the State and of the Corporation. The exercise done by us should not be understood as our accepting the submission of the petitioners' learned counsel that the opinion of urgency expressed by the Government is open to judicial review. On the legal aspect we accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation that the matter is beyond the pale of judicial review, if the opinion of the Government is based on material and is not actuated by ulterior motive; sufficiency of material is beyond the pale of judicial review, in the present case the material for formation of opinion is there and there is no ulterior motive. Accordingly the impugned direction under Section 17(4) is unassailable. 13. The present petition is not maintainable also for the reason that the petitioners are not objecting to the acquisition itself. The scope of inquiry under Section 5A is limited to determining whether the land should be acquired or not. When the petitioners are not objecting to acquisition itself they obviously have nothing to say in the enquiry under Section 5A. Therefore by dispensing with the enquiry the petitioners have not suffered any prejudice. 14. In view of the above the petition is dismissed with separate set of costs to the State and the Corporation. (petition dismissed.)