JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Shri Inder Pal and fourteen others are petitioners before this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first two respondents are the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Land Acquisition Collector, (Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Urban)), Shimla, while the third and fourth respondents are the Union of India and the General Manager Telecommunication, Government of India, Himachal Pradesh Circle. The remaining respondents 5 to 8 are proforma respondents. 2. There is a property called "Bawa Hotel Complex Estate, (Mel- rose)" situate in Khasra plot Nos. 808/580, 581/1 and 774/581 measuring 3438 sq. yards and 7 sq feet within the municipal limits of Shimla opposite the Railway Board building between the road leading from the Mall to lower Kaithu and the Secretariat Post Office. On 5th October, 1987 a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brief, "the Act") was issued in respect of the property and the public purpose for which it was so notified was disclosed as locating the Telecommunication Himachal Pradesh Circle Complex at Shimla. The notification was published in Newspapers on 27th October, 1987 and on the spot on 5th November, 1987, Objections were filed by the various petitioners under section 5-A of the Act. The second petitioner did so on 7th November, 1987 while the others did so on 2lst November, 1987. Land Acquisition Collector sent notice dated 4th April, 1988 to them asking them to appear before him on 29th April, 1988 for hearing of the objections. The petitioners also made a representation dated 4th June, 1988 to the Chief Minister. The gist of the representation was reported in Dainik Punjab Kesariof6th June, 1988. 3. On 16th August, 1988 the State of Himachal Pradesh published a notification dated 20th July, 1988 in the daily Tribune. It was mentioned in this notification that the land was required urgently for a public purpose for locating the Telecommunication Himachal Pradesh Circle Complex at Shimla. The declaration under section 6 was made through this notification and the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to take orders of acquisition. It was also said that the Land Acquisition Collector would take possession of the land as the matter was of urgent nature. A copy of the notification has been appended as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. The declaration under section 6 was made through this notification and the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to take orders of acquisition. It was also said that the Land Acquisition Collector would take possession of the land as the matter was of urgent nature. A copy of the notification has been appended as Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. The petitioners say that they also learnt that a notification dated 27th April, 1988 under section 17 (4) of the Act had also been issued by the State saying that on account of the urgency of the matter, the provisions of section 5-A would not apply. The petitioners have brought on record a copy of that notification as Annexure P-7/A. 4. The present writ petition was filed on 29th August, 1988. This Court directed issue of notice to the first four respondents on 20th September, 1988 and to the other respondents on 1st November, 1988. The first four respondents have placed their version in the affidavits filed on their behalf to which affidavits-in-rejoinder have been filed by the petitioners. 5. The matter came up before the Court from time to time and on 24th March, 1990, while hearing it, this Court felt that an opportunity be given to the learned Assistant Advocate General to obtain instructions whether the State of Himachal Pradesh would be inclined to give a hearing to the petitioners and then take a final decision in the matter irrespective of the application by it earlier of the provisions of section 17 of the Act in the case The learned Advocate General appeared before this Court on 9th May, 1991 and told the Court that the Government did not propose to afford any opportunity to the petitioners under section 5-A of the Act in view of the circumstances detailed in the letter of the learned Additional District Magistrate dated 16th March, 1991 to the Advocate General The case was then heard further and judgment reserved on 2nd April, 1992. 6. 6. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that after issuance of the notification under section 4 on 5th October, 1987 and the objections under section 5-A having been filed by the petitioners on 7th and 21st November, 1987 for the disposal whereof they were asked to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector on 28th April, 1988 through a notice dated 4th April, 1988, the application of the provisions of section 17 (1) and (4), without there being any material before the State Government justifying such a course being adopted, and denial of opportunity to the petitioners for a hearing on their objections under section 5-A of the Act, the decision, to proceed further with acquisition of their property was without the authority of law. 7. We have a reply affidavit sworn by the Land Acquisition Collector on 29th May, 1989 on the record of this petition. By way of justification for issuance of the notification under sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) it has been stated in this affidavit that : "...the land fn question is urgently required for the establishment of Telecommunication Centre..." And, that : “......the notice under sections 17(4) and 17 (1) have been issued on the request of the acquiring department as they wanted to establish the complex immediately......" These averments are to be found in paragraphs 12 and 12-A of the reply affidavit We also find an affidavit of Shri H. R. Bashal, Telecom District Engineer, Shimla, sworn by him on 28th November, 1988, on the record. Some reasons have been mentioned in it on account whereof the State Government was requested to invoke the emergency provision of the Act. The main reasons put forward are that the office of the General Manager Telecommunication Circle Himachal Pradesh was shifted from Ambala to Shimla in October, 1987 but no Government space was available for housing the said office properly and there was no space left in the Central Telegraph Office building for expansion of Main Automatic Exchange. Further, that an Electronic Digital Trunk Automatic Exchange was to be urgently commissioned in the C. T. O. building for enabling National/International Subscribers Dialling possible from all the twelve District headquarters of Himachal Pradesh and some other important Tourist/Industrial Centres of the State. These assertions are to be found in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. Further, that an Electronic Digital Trunk Automatic Exchange was to be urgently commissioned in the C. T. O. building for enabling National/International Subscribers Dialling possible from all the twelve District headquarters of Himachal Pradesh and some other important Tourist/Industrial Centres of the State. These assertions are to be found in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. Later, in paragraph 12 of the same affidavit, it has been reiterated that notification under section 17 (4) had been issued to do away with the enquiry under section. 5-A because the land was urgently required for the establishment of Telecommunication Centre. 8. In an affidavit sworn on 24th October, 1988 by Shri Basant Singh Goel, Under Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, it was disclosed to this Court that a proposal for acquisition of the property in public interest and for a public purpose had been received by the State Government from the Deputy Commissioner on receipt of a request from the Telecom District Engineer, Shimla, whereafter a notification under section 4 dated 5th October, 1987 was published in the H. P. Gaz (Extraordinary) on 31st October, 1987. A fresh request was received from the Telecom District. Engineer Shimla through his letter of 4th February, 1988 for urgent acquisition of the property. Then, the notification dated 20th July, 1988, which was published in the official Gazette (Extraordinary) on 21st July, 1988, under section 17 (1) dispensing with the requirement of section 5-A, came to be made. This was preceded by a notification of 27th April, 1988 under section 17 (4) The affidavit says further, in paragraph 6, that: "......even after the issuance of the notifications cited in the fore going paras, the Land Acquisition Collector (SDM Urban), Shimla, has not moved for taking over the possession of the intended property before announcing the award as required under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act ibid, till now....." 9. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act would show that : "Normally, after the preliminary publication under section 4 (1) any person interested in any land so notified would be entitled to file an objection before the Collector who would, after giving an opportunity to the objector of being heard and after making such further inquiry as he thinks necessary, make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objection, together with the record of the proceedings before him, and Government would, after consideration thereof, make a declaration of the nature envisaged by section 6 (1) if it is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose.....Thereafter, the Collector shall proceed to make acquisition of the land in accordance with the provisions following ..It can be visualised that an objector may be able to place before the Collector cogent material to satisfy him, and eventually the appropriate Government, that it may not be necessary to displace him, for achievement of the purpose for which acquisition is being made, from his parcel of land, either wholly of in part and ... He may succeed in convincing them that in the circumstances of the case it was not really necessary to uproot him....The inquiry under section 5-A is summary in nature and can be easily completed within reasonable time. Section 17 contains a departure from the normal procedure of taking possession of the acquired land after making of the award for compensation. It contemplates the taking of possession with out awaiting the making of the award in cases of urgency. It also envisages that where taking of possession before the making of the award is necessary, the provisions of section 5-A may be made inapplicable by the appropriate Government, thus obviating the necessity of an inquiry under that provision. There must be some compelling reasons to exclude even the summary inquiry under section 5-A in a given case and thereby depriving the person concerned of getting his land excluded from acquisition proceedings....." [A. P. Sareen and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1983 All U 1016]. 10. There must be some compelling reasons to exclude even the summary inquiry under section 5-A in a given case and thereby depriving the person concerned of getting his land excluded from acquisition proceedings....." [A. P. Sareen and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1983 All U 1016]. 10. We may recall the words of Krishna Iyer, J. in the State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319, when he said (in paragraph 16) that: ".....Without referring to supportive case law, it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a mans property is a serious matter Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and pre emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fair ness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a hearing land acquisition authorities should not, having regard to Articles 14 and 19 burke an enquiry under section 17 of the Act..." 11. M. H. Beg, J, (as he then was) in Narayon Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183, said that : ".......Considering the nature of the objections which are capable of being successfully taken under section 5-A it is difficult to see why the summary enquiry should not be concluded quite expeditiously....." And, that : "......The purpose of section 17 (4) of the Act is obviously, not merely to confine action under it to waste and arable land but also to situations in which an inquiry under section 5-A will serve no useful purpose, or, for some overriding reasons, it should be dispensed with. 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." (Emphasis ours) "......Urgency, according to dictionary means, immediate, very important, that which requires immediate attention. From its meaning it is apparent that its applicability has to vary. What may be very important in one set of circumstances may not be so in another. From its meaning it is apparent that its applicability has to vary. What may be very important in one set of circumstances may not be so in another. Invoking of urgency provision must precede existence of circumstances which requires the State Government to take immediate action....." [Jai Gurudev Dharam Pracharak Sangh and others v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1985 All 158.] 12. We find in the present case that the notification under section 4 (1) of 5th October, 1987 was followed by the filing of objections in the month of November, 1987 and a notice dated 4th April, 1988 calling upon the petitioners to appear for consideration of their objections under section 5-A on 29th April, 1988. The Telecom. District Engineer, Shimla, had already addressed his letter of 4th February, 1988 to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla with the request that "urgent steps may kindly be taken to acquire Bawa Hotel property on priority and urgency basis invoking section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894". This letter had been written long before the notice of 4th April, 1988 calling upon the petitioners for hearing of their objections. Besides, the notification applying the provisions of section 17 was of 27th April, 1988 and was published in a Hindi Daily Vir Pratap on 11th May, 1988 and in the official Gazette of 21st July, 1988. Even thereafter no action was taken for taking over possession of the property before announcing the Award as required under section 9 (1) of the Act as has been stated by the Under Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in paragraph 6 of the affidavit sworn by him on 24th October, 1988. 13. The petitioners say that there was no material before the State Government for applying the provisions of section 17 (1) and (4) in the case. The reply to it only is that these provisions were made applicable on account of the request made by the Telecommunication Department. There is no clear answer to averments to this effect contained in paragraphs 7-A and 12-A of the writ petition. 14. The question of urgency is to be determined by the State Government on its subjective satisfaction A court cannot normally inquire whether there was sufficient ground or justification for the opinion formed by the State Government under section 17 (4). 14. The question of urgency is to be determined by the State Government on its subjective satisfaction A court cannot normally inquire whether there was sufficient ground or justification for the opinion formed by the State Government under section 17 (4). However, the expression of opinion of the State Government can be challenged as ultra vires in accordance with law if it can be shown that the State Government never applied its mind. Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of U. P., AIR 1967 SC 1081 at p. 1085. The conclusion of the Government in a given case that there was urgency is entitled to weight but is not conclusive. Jagat Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1033. Urgency is an inference from some facts and circumstances which exist in a given case One cannot assume urgency on the basis of non-existent or irrelevant circumstances A. P. Sareen and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1983 All LJ 1016. 15. Jagat Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1033. Urgency is an inference from some facts and circumstances which exist in a given case One cannot assume urgency on the basis of non-existent or irrelevant circumstances A. P. Sareen and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1983 All LJ 1016. 15. The facts of the present case show, firstly, that apart from the request made by the Telecommunication Department, long after the issuance of the notification under section 4 (I), there was no other material on the basis whereof the State Government claims to have issued the notification under section 17 (1) and (4) ; secondly, that there was no assertion on the part of the State Government, nor has anything been shown to us to drawn an inference, that the State Government applied its mind to the question of urgency and came to the conclusion that there was urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under section 5-A should be eliminated and that there was need to dispense with an enquiry under that provision ; thirdly, that not only objections under section 5-A were entertained from the petitioners but they were also called upon to appear before the appropriate authority on 29th April, 1988 for a hearing in respect thereof ; fourthly, that the notification applying the provisions of section 17 (1) and (4) was mode on 27th April, 1988, though published in a newspaper in the month of May and in the official Gazette in the month of July, 1988 ; and fifthly, that even after the application of those provisions no steps were initiated by the Land Acquisition Collector for taking over possession of the intended property before announcing the Award, as required under section 9 (1) of the Act. It is obvious that the apparent satisfaction that there was urgency of a nature which called for dispensation of even the summary enquiry under section 5-A put forward in the notification of 27th April, 1988 and published in the official Gazette on 21st July, 1988 has been expressed mechanically without application of mind on the part of the State Government though, in realty, it had neither examined nor arrived at its own conclusion, on consideration of relevant material, that there existed urgency of the nature which could justify doing away with the provision of summary enquiry under section 5-A. As such, the declaration made by the State Government under section 6 of the Act through its notification of 20th July, 1988 cannot be upheld. The notification to that effect is quashed. The State Government would, however, be free to proceed in accordance with law with the acquisition proceedings. 16. We may add that on 7th May, 1991 C M. P. No. 389 of 1991 was moved on behalf of the petitioner for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the Collector had failed to make an Award within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration so that the entire proceedings for acquisition stood lapsed as contemplated by section 11-A. The declaration in this case had been made on 20th July, 1988. The petitioners had applied through C. M P. No 1242 of 1988 for an interim order staying their dispossession, The application was directed to be listed with the writ petition by an order dated 21st December, 1988. The matter remained pending and on 9th May, 1989 the case was adjourn ed on the prayer for the counsel for the petitioners to enable him to amend the writ petition. The counsel was heard on the amended petition on 24th March, 1990 when the Court thought it proper to afford an opportunity to the Assistant Advocate General for obtaining instructions from the State of Himachal Pradesh whether it would be inclined to give a hearing to the petitioners and then take a final decision in the matter irrespective of application by it of the provisions of section 17 earlier. It was on 9th May, 1991 that it was stated to the Court by the learned Advocate General that the State Government did not propose to do so. It was on 9th May, 1991 that it was stated to the Court by the learned Advocate General that the State Government did not propose to do so. The learned Counsel for the petitioners informed the Court on that date that Nth May, 1991 was fixed for filing a claim under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and obtained an order that the petitioners may file the claim without prejudice to the stand taken by them in the writ petition but the proceedings beyond that stage would remain stayed till further orders of that Court. On 20th March, 1992, the Court heard counsel for the parties for sometime on C. M. P. No. 389 of 1991 but felt that it would not be appropriate to decide the application in isolation and that interest of justice required that the entire writ petition be heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself. 17. We are of the view that it is not necessary for us to record any concluded opinion on the correctness of the claim made in the C. M. P. (No. 389 of 1991) though prima facie we are of opinion that in the circum stances of the present case it cannot be said that the entire proceedings for acquisition would lapse, particularly when we have, quashed the .declaration under section 6 itself for the reasons mentioned earlier in this judgment. 18. The petition shall stand allowed as aforesaid but parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.