Judgment :- The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Land Acquisition 1894, hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Act ’ to acquire land about an extent of hectares situate in Palayakayal Village, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Chidambaranar District, purpose of putting up a New Zirconium Sponge Plant and a Titanium Sponge Plant, cost of Rs.240 crores. In order to acquire the land, the Government, after their decision selecting the land for the purpose of establishing of the aforesaid plant, issued a notification as per the Act in G.O.Ms.Nos.833, Tamil Nadu Industries Department, dated 12.9.1989; G.O.Ms.Nos.863, Tamil Nadu Industries Department, dated 28.11.1989; G.O.Ms.Nos.740 741, Tamil Nadu Industries Department, dated 18.10.1989, and caused the same published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 18.10.1989 and 29.11.1989. Government of Tamil Nadu caused a publication of the said notification in Tamil dailies 23.9.1989, 20.10.1989 respectively in ‘ Malai Murasu’ and Dina Malar dated 30.10.1989, 31.10.1989,7.12.1989,18.8.1990. In the said notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, it specified that since it became necessary to acquire the immediate possession of the specified in the schedule thereunder, the Governor of Tamil Nadu thereby directed lands were to be acquired by invoking the provisions of Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.17 the said Act. It is also specified that under Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.17 of the said Act, Government of Tamil Nadu directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions sec.5-A of the Act would not apply to the case. A similar provision contained in notifications referred to therein above. Having due regard to the provisions of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, it is proper to extract the notification published in of the Tamil Nadu Government gazette. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT Acquisition of Lands. (G.O.Ms.Nos.633, Industries (MIA-2), 12th September, 1989). A similar provision contained in notifications referred to therein above. Having due regard to the provisions of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, it is proper to extract the notification published in of the Tamil Nadu Government gazette. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT Acquisition of Lands. (G.O.Ms.Nos.633, Industries (MIA-2), 12th September, 1989). No.II (2) IND/6087/89, whereas in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Art.258 of the Constitution of India the President of India has in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation (Department of Agriculture), notification 1/65, General II, dated the 23rd April, 1966, entrusted to the Government of Tamil with their consent the function of the Central Government under the Land Acquisition 1894 (Central Act I of 1894), in relation to acquisition of the lands for the purposes Union in the State; And, whereas, the lands specified in the schedule below are needed public purpose, to wit, for the establishment of a New Zirconium and Titanium Sponge at Palayakayal in Srivaikuntam Taluk, notice to that effect is hereby given to all to whom may concern in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4 of the Acquisition Act, 1891 (Central Act 1 of 1894); And, Whereas, it has become necessary to acquire the immediate possession of the specified, in the schedule below, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that the be acquired under the provisions of Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.17 of the said Act; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 of the said the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby specifically authorises the Special Tahsildar Acquisition), Unit No.II, Zirconium and Titanium, Tuticorin, and his staff and workmen, exercise the powers conferred by the said Subsection. Under Sub-sec. (4) of Sec.17 said Act the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that in view of the urgency of the provisions of Sec.5-A of the said Act shall not apply to this case." 2. It is stated that after the publication of the notification as aforesaid, the Government Tamil Nadu caused a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.957,958 and 960, dated 21.12.1989 to be published in the Tamil Gazette, dated 2212.1989. The Government of Tamil Nadu caused the said declaration published in the Tamil dailies, namely, ‘Dinakaran, Dina Thanthi, ‘Makkal Kural’ , etc., 2.1.1990, 3.1.1990, 7.1.1990, 18.1.1990, etc. The Government of Tamil Nadu caused the said declaration published in the Tamil dailies, namely, ‘Dinakaran, Dina Thanthi, ‘Makkal Kural’ , etc., 2.1.1990, 3.1.1990, 7.1.1990, 18.1.1990, etc. The Government also caused public notices the substance of the notification to be published in the locality as contemplated under provisions of the said Act on 6.1.1990, 9.1.1990, 10.1.1990 and 22.1.1990. Government after publication of the notification as specified herein, caused a notice Sec.9(1) of the Act to be served on the persons interested and thereafter took possession a portion of the land under acquisition. It may be relevant to state that the government caused an amendment of notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act for the words and under the provisions of Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.17 of the said Act”, to be read as the provisions of Sub-sec(1) of Sec.17 of the said Act, to be published in the Tamil Government gazette dated 16th February, 1990.” It is at this stage, the petitioners filed the above writ petitions for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act issued as aforesaid in respect of the acquisition proceedings question. 3. Mr.C.Chinnasamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners contended that the government have invoked the provisions of Secs.17(1) and 17(4) of the Act publishing the notifications under Sec.4(1) of the Act for the purpose of acquiring the in question. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that having due regard to the acquisition proceedings, the provisions of Secs.17(1) and (2) of the Act are not attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the writ petitioners came to only when the publication of the notification was made in the Tamil dailies wherein, specified that the government had discussed with the Government of India for the purpose of establishing of a New Zirconium Sponge Plant and a Titanium Sponge Plant and while the entire project to erect the Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant is at the stage of embryo and that several stages and constraints have to be gone through before the project is given birth to. It is in these circumstances that the invocation of the provisions of urgency is really not attracted. It is in these circumstances that the invocation of the provisions of urgency is really not attracted. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is a total non-application of the mind for the reasons that even though respondents have had discussion with reference to the bringing up the project in question, they have initiated acquisition proceedings after a long time and that itself shows that was no real urgency. Next the learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that invocation of Sec.17(1) of the Act can be done only after the publication of declaration under Sec.6 of the Act and the law is well settled that the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act can issued only after the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act and in instant acquisition proceedings, since Sec.17(1) of the Act is clubbed with Sec.4(1) of Act, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further contended that the lands covered in W.P.No.16229 of 1989 are ear-marked for purpose of the construction of Staff Quarters and these lands are far away from the where the establishment of the proposed plant was planned and it cannot be said that respondents were right in dispensing with the enquiry as contemplated under Sec.5 Act, in so far as the lands ear-marked for construction of staff quarters are concerned. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the provisions of Sec.17(1) and (4) of the Act cannot be clubbed for the reason that the notification under Sec.17(1) of Act can be issued only after the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act. learned counsel for the writ petitioner further contended that even for the purpose issuance of notification for acquiring land for the proposed establishment of the plant, Government have taken time from February, 1989 to September, 1989. 5. Mr.M.N.Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that by reason of the invoking of the urgency provisions, the entire proceedings are vitiated and that writ petitioners are entitled to challenge the proceedings for the said reason. 6. In reply, the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the news item specified in the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions containing that the entire project was then at the stage of its embryo is sustainable for two reasons. 6. In reply, the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the news item specified in the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions containing that the entire project was then at the stage of its embryo is sustainable for two reasons. The news item relates to the proposal for setting up a Titanium Di-Oxide and that is not way connected with the proposed Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant. Consequently, submission is not sustainable. That apart, the learned Advocate General further pointed that the news item published in the newspaper is only a secondary evidence and if any evidence with reference to the facts set out therein, the news item should be taken supporting material and however it has no evidentiary value as settled by the Court in S.M.Balakrishna v. George Fernandez and others etc., A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1201. learned Advocate General further contended that various factors have been taken account for the purpose of establishing the Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant Project the lands sought to be acquired and the details have been set out in detail in paragraphs to 11 of the counter affidavit filed in the above writ petitions. The learned Advocate further contended that paragraphs 3 to 11 of the counter affidavit disclose the real and consequently, it cannot be said that there was a total non-application of the mind. also further contended that by reason of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said there was a long delay from February, 1989 to September, 1989 as contended learned counsel for the writ petitioners. The learned Advocate General further contended that specification of Secs.17(1) and (4) of the Act in the notification published under (1) of the Act only enables the Land Acquisition Officer to exercise the power appropriate time by following the procedure prescribed in that behalf. In the absence inhibition in so specifying the power under Sec.17(1) and 17(4) of the Act the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act cannot be said to be otherwise illegal or contrary to the law. 7. The learned Advocate General further contended that the acquisition is for the purpose establishing of a new Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant at the cost of Rs.240 crores an area of more than 459.72.00 hectares. 7. The learned Advocate General further contended that the acquisition is for the purpose establishing of a new Zirconium and Titanium Sponge Plant at the cost of Rs.240 crores an area of more than 459.72.00 hectares. When acquisition proceedings were initiated the purpose of establishment of the plant as aforesaid, the acquisition relates to composite purpose, namely, not only for the purpose of establishment of the plant, but also purpose of providing housing and other facilities which are required for the purpose accommodation technocrats and other research persons and for that purpose construction of housing quarters also was considered urgent. 8. Considering the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel appearing on of both sides, it is not in dispute that the Government initiated proceedings for acquisition the properties for the purpose of establishment of the Zirconium and Titanium Sponge in an area of 459.72.00 hectares at the cost of 240 crores. The reasons set invocation of the urgency as contained in paragraphs 4 to 10 are extracted as follows: “(4) I submit that the Government of India has given highest priority for generation electricity for boosting industrial production and overall development of the country. Department of Atomic Energy has, therefore, set up a strategy for constructing a series Nuclear Power Stations during the next 10 years for achieving 10,000 MWe of Production, as approved by the Government of India. In this connection, the Department Atomic Energy has proposed to set up a New Zirconium Sponge Project for the production Zirconium metal, which is required for construction of New Nuclear Power Stations and for manufacture of fuel required, for their operation. Thus, this project is directly connected with the generation of electrical energy, which is required for the over-all development the country. Simultaneously, the Defence Research and Development Organisation had envisaged the setting up of the Titanium Sponge Project for the production of metal which is required for the manufacturing of condensers and heat exchangers for thermal and nuclear power stations and which is also required for the high technology like Space. Aeronautics, Petro-chemical etc. The technology for the development of two metals has been developed indigenously by the respective Central Government organisations. India is one of the few countries in the world to develop this technology. Aeronautics, Petro-chemical etc. The technology for the development of two metals has been developed indigenously by the respective Central Government organisations. India is one of the few countries in the world to develop this technology. (5) I submit that the Defence Research and Development Organisation authorized Department of Atomic Energy to identify a suitable site for its selection committee consistingof specialists including Senior Environmental Scientists from the constituent of Department of Atomic Energy and Defence Research and Development Organisation constituted for this purpose. The Committee evaluated totally 21 sites in four States Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Tamil Nadu with the assistance of the respective Governments. After preliminary evaluation, the committee physically inspected 9 (nine) in the above States and evaluated them, taking into account, among various factors, availability of raw materials, chemicals, water, power, land facilities for effluent environmental aspects, engineering and transport infrastructure, skilled manpower then identified three sites viz., (1) one in Tamil Nadu, (2) one in Andhra Pradesh, One in Orissa. As regards these three sites, the committee again worked out the criteria for selection, such as site related capital and variable costs, environmental and other socio-economic factors such as land, water power and skilled manpower Based on the above, the merits order was drawn and the site of Palayakayal Srivaikuntam Taluk, Chidambaranar District, Tamil Nadu was found to be the meritorious site for the above two projects and placed first in the merit list. (6) I further submit that as the next step, the three sites were again inspected and evaluation was carried out by a High Level Committee of Government of India, viz., committee of the Nuclear Fuel Complex Board, and this committee after taking into various strategic factors and techno and socio-economic aspects unanimously concluded the site of Palayakayal Village in Tamil Nadu would be the most suitable site for setting the New Zirconium Sponge Project and the Titanium sponge Project. The recommendation the above sub-committee was subsequently approved by the Nuclear. Fuel Complex the Department of Atomic Energy and the Atomic Energy Commission. Accordingly, request was made to the Tamil Nadu State Government by the Department of Atomic on 25.7.1989 to acquire the lands identified both for the industrial plant and Housing Palayakayal village invoking the urgency provisions of Sec.17 of the Land Acquisition 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act). Accordingly, request was made to the Tamil Nadu State Government by the Department of Atomic on 25.7.1989 to acquire the lands identified both for the industrial plant and Housing Palayakayal village invoking the urgency provisions of Sec.17 of the Land Acquisition 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter called the Act). The Government of India informed project was required to be commissioned very early on a time bound basis. They that immediate action to acquire the lands under urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act be taken. (7) It is respectfully submitted that the estimated total capital outlay for the Project is Rs.250 crores. The Project is required to be completed and commissioned latest by of 1992 for meeting the schedule of construction of various Nuclear power stations country. If there is any delay in the construction of this Project, the construction power stations in turn will get delayed seriously and this will result in deleterious consequences to the national interest. The physical construction of these two projects take about 36 months from the date the land is made available. With a view to expedite construction of these projects, the Government of India has already given an sanction of Rs.7 crores for meeting the preliminary expenditure for commencement of projects, such as those connected with: (a) Acquisition of land; (b) Infrastructural development such as Power supply and approach roads; (c) Environmental studies; and (d) Design Engineering with respect to the Project etc. Further, the Cabinet Committee of Economic. Affairs (of the Government of India) has recently approved the setting up of the Titanium Sponge Project by the Department Atomic Energy (in co-ordination with Defence Research Development Organisation and with an estimated outlay of Rs,74 crores during the 8th Five Year Plan, along with subsidies such as exemption of Customs andExcise & Duties for strategic reasons. 9. Affairs (of the Government of India) has recently approved the setting up of the Titanium Sponge Project by the Department Atomic Energy (in co-ordination with Defence Research Development Organisation and with an estimated outlay of Rs,74 crores during the 8th Five Year Plan, along with subsidies such as exemption of Customs andExcise & Duties for strategic reasons. 9. It is submitted that towards the execution of these projects, the following steps already been taken: (a) The detailed project reports have already been prepared and approved Government of India; (b) The first respondent (State Government) has already agreed to supply the required quantity of water and power; (c) The Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board has already carried out preliminary engineering studies at the site and currently initiated actions for installing pipeline supply of water for which payment has been made; (d) with respect to environmental clearance, the Tamil Nadu State Environment Committee and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board have already approved the site and necessary clearances. As per the regulations of the Department of Environment and Government of India, detailed environmental monitoring Studies have been carried the consultant at Palayakayal site and the ETA/EMP reports have been scrutinized Department of Environment and their clearance is expected shortly. (e) Other related agencies such as the Central Fisheries Research Institute and the Institute of Oceanography and Ground Water Cell have also completed their environmental studies; (f) The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has already initiated action for installation of power site, for which advance payments have been made. 10. It is submitted that an extent of 459.72.0 hectares is proposed to be acquired project covered by five different notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Particulars regarding extent of lands covered in the writ petitions are given below: 11. It is further submitted that for the purpose of commissioning the project by end of it was decided that steps should be taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu to complete Land Acquisition procedures expeditiously and to hand over the lands to the Department Atomic Energy in February, 1990. However, due to above stay Orders the land acquisition proceedings have been hampered and thus the construction of these projects has considerably delayed. However, due to above stay Orders the land acquisition proceedings have been hampered and thus the construction of these projects has considerably delayed. Any further delay in the implementation of the projects for land will adversely affect the construction of the Nuclear Power Station for the generation electricity which is the highest priority for national development. Augmentation of power vital to faster industrial development. This being a core sector it deserves highest priority all stages. The proposed zirconium project is aimed at nuclear power generation. The authorities have to get the lands first in order to commence the other stages of implementation; so that the project is completed according to the schedule. Accordingly, Government had to invoke urgency provisions of the said Act. Due to prompt action, lands covered by writ petitions and other lands covered by the impugned orders were possession on 31.3.1990 and handed over to the 4th respondents viz., the Department Atomic Energy on 31.3.1990 and 2.4.1990. The department of Atomic Energy has started remove the shrubs and the levelling up of the land. 12. Having due regard to the averments contained in the aforesaid paragraphs, manifest that there exists real urgency. When the real urgency exists, it is not for the to investigate whether the materials on which the government came to the conclusion invocation of the urgency process while acquiring the land, are sufficient. The court go into the question of adequacy of material or evidence for the purpose of invocation urgency. If the court is satisfied with reference to the existence of urgency, it is sufficient. The court cannot investigate whether the materials available on record for the purpose invocation of urgency clause are sufficient or not. While so, the reasons set out purpose of selecting the site as well as for the implementation of the project, etc., that there exists a real urgency and that explains the delay between February, 1989 September, 1989 and consequently, the contentions, raised by the learned counsel behalf are not sustainable in law. 13. While so, the reasons set out purpose of selecting the site as well as for the implementation of the project, etc., that there exists a real urgency and that explains the delay between February, 1989 September, 1989 and consequently, the contentions, raised by the learned counsel behalf are not sustainable in law. 13. With reference to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that government cannot brook the delay of holding the enquiry is also not sustainable reason that the government in the instant case have sought to acquire about an extent 459.72.00 acres of land owned by several individuals and if the enquiry as contemplated under Sec.5-A of the Act is to be held, the respondents have to forward all the objections the requisition department, and to obtain the views of the requisition department, furnish the views to the land owners and other persons interested, and to hold an and to submit a report which cannot in the normal course be completed in a period of months after the notice. Having regard to the phased programme as set out paragraphs referred to herein above, the Government were under real urgency to complete the acquisition within the time stipulated therein for the purpose of establishment plant as per the phased programme and consequently, it is not humanly possible complete the formalities that are required to be followed to hold enquiry under Sec.5 Act, within a short span of time as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners contention on behalf of the writ petitioners that the government can brook the delay holding the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act is not sustainable. The learned counsel petitioners contended that specifying the provisions under Secs.17(1) and (4) in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, enabling the respondents to exercise the powers available thereunder not sustainable, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the specification of provisions of Secs.17(1) and 17(4) of the Act in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the enables the respondents to exercise the power available under the aforesaid sub and when it has necessarily to be exercised in the instant case. The provision of Sec.17(4) relates to the dispensation of the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. The provision of Sec.17(4) relates to the dispensation of the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act. In the instant case it only after the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, and after issuance notices as contemplated, the Government have to exercise the power available under Sec.17 (1) of the Act. With the result, there is no substance in the contention that the provision Secs.17(1) and (4) of the Act cannot be clubbed with the notification under Sec.4(1) of Act. There is no inhibition in any of the provisions of the Act, for the authorities to exercise the power in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Sec.17(1) of the Act. learned counsel Mr.C.Chinnasamy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners refers to decision in Hakkim Singh v. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1970 All. 151, wherein it been held that Sec.17(1) and (4) are two independent provisions capable of being enforced at two different stages of land acquisition proceedings. 14. It is not in dispute that the provision of Secs.17(1) and 17(4) of the Act are independent provisions. Sec.17(4)of the Act contemplates dispensation of enquiry provided under Sec.5-A of the Act. Sec.17(1) of the Act contemplates taking immediate possession after the expiry of 15 days from the issue of notice under Sec.9(1) of the Act hence the decision cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners will not support case of the writ petitioners. 15. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as the respondents referred to decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Chinnamma v. State, A.I.R. 1986 Mad. wherein the relevant passage is as follows: "Before us, Mr.Chidambaram the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following four legal contentions-- 1. that there has been no application of the mind and there is a mechanical invocation of urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and therefore, the dispensation of enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act should be held to be void. 2. That the invocation of the urgency clause was only in the case of the petitioners appellants while the similar lands in the hands of Thiruvalargal A.V.Ramakrishnan and Srini vasan had been acquired under the ordinary provisions of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.1122, Industries, dated 12.8.1982, and this amounts to a hostile discrimination, violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 3. 2. That the invocation of the urgency clause was only in the case of the petitioners appellants while the similar lands in the hands of Thiruvalargal A.V.Ramakrishnan and Srini vasan had been acquired under the ordinary provisions of the Act in G.O.Ms.No.1122, Industries, dated 12.8.1982, and this amounts to a hostile discrimination, violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 3. That the recitals as to where from compensation payable for the lands is to come is on the face of it as the earlier orders of the government were to the effect that SIPCOT to pay the full compensation payable for the lands and such a false recital in the declaration under Sec.6 will make the declaration itself invalid. 4. That, in any event in this case since the acquisition is for SIPCOT, which is a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, the acquisition should have been done under VII of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the acquisition under Part II is invalid. 5. We will now proceed with the above four points in seriatim. So far as the first point concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the invocation the urgency clause cannot be automatic or mechanical, that there should be a conscious application of the mind on the question as to whether an enquiry under Sec.5-A of the should be dispensed with and that if there is a mechanical invocation of the urgency clause without an actual application of the mind, the invocation of the urgency clause should held to be bad. Mohan, J., has referred to the fact that originally the government G.O.Ms.No.976, Industries, dated 15.7.1981 had directed the Collector to submit necessary proposal for the acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the lands Gummudipoondi under the ordinary provisions of the Act. Mohan, J., has referred to the fact that originally the government G.O.Ms.No.976, Industries, dated 15.7.1981 had directed the Collector to submit necessary proposal for the acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the lands Gummudipoondi under the ordinary provisions of the Act. Later, in view of representation made by SIPCOT to acquire the lands under the urgency provisions government, after careful consideration, approved the revised proposal of SIPCOT for the acquisition of the lands invoking the urgency provisions under Sec.17(1) of the respect of lands where there are no structures and lands which are arable and waste respect of the other lands, land acquisition proceedings to be initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and that a careful reading of the file clearly discloses that apart from mechanically invoking the urgency provisions the government had steps at every stage to see that it was not invoked as a matter of course. According learned Judge, the government was aware of the scope of Sec.17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and expressly stated that wherever there are structures on the lands proposed acquired, they should be excluded from the purview of the urgency clause of the Act. also shows that there has been application of the mind. In that view, the learned justified the invocation of the urgency clause. The learned counsel for the petitioners say that it is only in cases where the acquisition of land will brook not even a delay month, the urgency provisions could be invoked. In support of this contention, he refers the decisions in Muthu Gounder v. Government of Madras, (1968)2 M.L.J. 349 and Ghouse v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978)1 M.L.J. 339 .A.I.R. 1978 Mad 277. However, we agreement with Mohan, J. when he says us that tit cannot be stated as a general proposition that only if the matter cannot brook a delay of 30 days, urgency provisions can be The above rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be taken down such a general proposition. The invo-cation of urgency provisions will have to upon the circumstances of each case. The invo-cation of urgency provisions will have to upon the circumstances of each case. The learned counsel then refers to a decision Supreme Court in Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 183, in support case that having regard to the purposes for which the land was required, that is, development of an area for industrial purposes, there is no justification for invoking urgency clause. In that case certain lands were sought to be acquired for the development and utilisation of the same as a residential and industrial area under the emergency provisions of the Act without holding even a summary enquiry under Sec.5-A of the. Act. Supreme Court, taking note of the object for which the lands were acquired, i. development of the same as an industrial area, held that such schemes generally sufficient period of time to enable at least summary inquiries under Sec.5-A of the Act completed without any impediment whatsoever to the execution of the scheme and that very statement of the public for which the land was to be acquired indicated the absence such urgency; on the apparent facts of the case, as to require the elimination of an under Sec.5-A of the Act." It is clear from the above decision that it cannot be stated as a general proposition that if the matter cannot brook a delay of 30 days, the urgency provision could be invoked. cannot be said that there is no application of the mind in the instant case and that government mechanically invoked the urgency provision of the Act. In G.Kasthuri Ammal The State of Tamil Nadu, (1990)2 M.L.J. 138 , the Division Bench of this Court follows: "A decision on the question of invoking urgency is only intent of the government. decision is not ordinarily justifiable. But that decision must be taken on proper material in an objective manner. That power is not to be invoked mechanically. When the High is called upon 40 see as to whether the invoking of the urgency power has been exercised, it has necessarily to examine whether the decision was based on acceptable material and has not been done in an arbitrary manner without reference to the details. That power is not to be invoked mechanically. When the High is called upon 40 see as to whether the invoking of the urgency power has been exercised, it has necessarily to examine whether the decision was based on acceptable material and has not been done in an arbitrary manner without reference to the details. The enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act enables the owner of the land sought acquired to make his objections and there has to be normally consideration of the objections before a decision is taken; and the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act is made. invoking urgency powers, this normal process is dispensed with. Naturally, it becomes obligation and duty of the court when it is called upon to examine the propriety of invoking urgency powers, to find out as to whether such invoking of urgency powers has properly done and not arbitrarily without reference to the existence of urgency." 16. In the instant case, it is well explained by the respondents that there existed urgency at the time of initiation of the acquisition proceedings and it is manifest from the facts of the case as well as from the averments contained in the counter affidavit that the respondents have applied their mind invoking the urgency provisions of the Act, while initiating acquisition proceedings and the respondents have also made out a case that there is a need for dispensation of under Sec.5-A of the Act. The respondent has also explained that when the acquisition proceedings were initiated for the purpose of establishment of a sponge plant, acquisition relates to composite purpose, viz., for the purpose of establishment of the and also for the purpose of provision of housing and the other required facilities purpose of accommodating technocrafts and other research persons and other While so, the contention that the urgency provision cannot be invoked in respect of the for the purpose of providing staff quarters is not sustainable. The construction of quarters techno-crafts and other persons connected therewith is as important as the construction the aforesaid plant and while so, the respondents are right in invoking the provisions to acquire the lands for the purpose of construction of quarters for techno and other connected persons. 17. The construction of quarters techno-crafts and other persons connected therewith is as important as the construction the aforesaid plant and while so, the respondents are right in invoking the provisions to acquire the lands for the purpose of construction of quarters for techno and other connected persons. 17. With reference to the contention that the invocation of the provision of Sec.17(1) Act could be made only after the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 of the consequently unless declaration under Sec.6 of the Act is made, Sec.17(1) proceedings cannot be invoked, in the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, provisions of Secs.17(1) and 17(4) are also specified. But the powers under Secs.17(1) and 17(4) shall be exercised only at the appropriate stage, for instance immediately after the notification under of the Act, enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act is to be held. By virtue of the provision Sec.17(4) enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act is dispensed with. Likewise, it is only after publication and declaration under Sec.6 of the Act and after a notice as contemplated Sec.9(1) of the Act the power under Sec.17(1) shall be exercised. It is not the case petitioners that the Land Acquisition Officer has exercised the power available under (1) of the Act even before the declaration is made. When Secs.17(1) and 17(4) are in Sec.4(1) notification, it is only an entrustment of power and that such power shall exercised by the officer concerned only at the appropriate time. There is no prohibition entrusting the power available under Secs.17(1) and 17(4) by incorporating the same in notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Consequently, the contention of the petitioners to the contrary has no substance. 18. The other contention that the government have taken time from February to September, 1989 for the purpose of issuance of notification is also without substance. The Advocate General has explained the various stages at which decision has been taken and consequently the contention in this behalf has no substance. The only question that has to be considered is whether there existed any urgency at the time when the notification under Sec.4(1) of Act was issued and whether there was any need for dispensation of enquiry under Sec.5 the Act. The only question that has to be considered is whether there existed any urgency at the time when the notification under Sec.4(1) of Act was issued and whether there was any need for dispensation of enquiry under Sec.5 the Act. In the instant case, the aforesaid factors have been satisfactorily explained In of the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the instant acquisition proceedings vitiated by any of the reasons set out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners. As there are no merits in the contentions of the petitioners, the writ petitions and are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.