JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - In this petition and the other group of petitions connected with this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the notifications dated 21-8-1985 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein-after referred to as 'the Act') and dated 28-8-1985 issued u/s 6 of the Act for the purpose of establishing the Housing Colony in the city of Meerut. It is necessary to state few relevant facts in order to decide the controversy in these petitions. The notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 21-8-1985. The notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 28-8-1985. On 2-9-1985, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published in the daily newspapers. On 3/4-9-1985 the notification u/s 6 was published in the daily newspapers. On 5-9-1985 public notice of the substance of the notification was given in respect of both the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. 2. When the petition was filed, the Petitioners had challenged the notification u/s 6 of the Act on the ground that notification u/s 6 of the Act could only be issued after the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. The case set up was that since the notification u/s 4 of the Act should be deemed to have been published on 5th of Sept. 1985, which is a date subsequent to the issue of notification u/s 6 of the Act dated 28-8-1985, the notification u/s 6 of the Act is wholly invalid and consequently, the entire acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. Section 17(4) of the Act reads as follows : In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the (appropriate Government), the provisions of sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) are applicable, the (appropriate Government) may direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made u/s 6 in respect of the land at any time (after the date of the publication of the notification) u/s 4, sub-Section (1) Sub-Section (4) of Section 17 quoted above clearly lays down that a declaration u/s 6 of the Act. in respect of the land sought to be acquired has to be made any time after the date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. in respect of the land sought to be acquired has to be made any time after the date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. On the face of it, therefore, in view of sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, a notification u/s 6 having been issued prior to the publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act, the notification u/s 6 of the Act would have been clearly invalid. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the Act came up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. Vs. Radhey Shyam Nigam and Others, AIR 1989 SC 682 . In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that a declaration u/s 6 of the Act cannot be issued simultaneously with the notification u/s 4 of the Act but it has to be issued on a subsequent date after the publication of the notification under sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the Act. 4. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the U.P. Legislature enacted the land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and validation Act 1991) (U.P. Act no. 5 of 1991) in order to validate certain acquisitions of land] made under the said Act in respect of which the notification u/s 4(1) and sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act has been published in the Gazette on or after September 24, 1984 and before January 11, 1989 (the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court). By this Act, a proviso was added to Section 17 of the Act which reads as follows : Provided that where in the case of any land, notification u/s 4, sub-Section (1) has been published in the official gazette on or after . September 24, 1984 but before January II, 1989, and the appropriate Government has under this sub-Section directed that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply a declaration u/s 6 in respect of the land may be made either simultaneously with, or at any time after, the publication in the official gazette of the notification u/s 4, sub-Section (1). September 24, 1984 but before January II, 1989, and the appropriate Government has under this sub-Section directed that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply a declaration u/s 6 in respect of the land may be made either simultaneously with, or at any time after, the publication in the official gazette of the notification u/s 4, sub-Section (1). In view of this validating Act, since in the instant case both the notifications u/s 4 and Section 6 of the Act were made simultaneously, it could not now beheld that the notification u/s 6 of the Act was invalid on the ground that it was issued prior to the publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. 5. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised two main contentions before us. His first contention is that there is no material on record to establish that there was urgency and that the State Government did not apply its mind or the question of disepensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. The second submission of the learned Counsel is that the Petitioners had already made constructions on the land in dispute prior to the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act and consequently, the land of the Petitioners could not have been acquired. 6. Section 5-A of the Act enables a person interested in any land which has been notified u/s 4 of the Act as being needed or likely to be needed for public purpose to file objections to the acquisition of the land or any land in the locality as the case may be. Section 17 of the Act confers power on the State Government in cases of urgency to dispense with the pro-visions of Section 5-A of the Act and to take possession of the land which is needed for public purpose. The question which arises in the present case consequently, is whether the State Government has rightly dispensed with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. 7. learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Meerut Development Authority has placed before us a decision of this Court in writ petition no. 18896 of 1987 M/s. J. Sons Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. decided on 11-9-1991 by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble B.P. Jeevan Reddy., Chief Justice (as he then was) and Mr. Justice R.A. Sharma. 18896 of 1987 M/s. J. Sons Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. decided on 11-9-1991 by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble B.P. Jeevan Reddy., Chief Justice (as he then was) and Mr. Justice R.A. Sharma. In this case the validity of a scheme of the Meerut Development Authority for a Housing Colony adjacent to the scheme in dispute in the present case was considered. The question of urgency was also considered. It was held by this Court that in the case of Housing Colony judicial notice can be taken on the fact that Meerut which is part of National Captial region and which is close to Delhi has to be developed and constructions for residential, commereial and industrial purpose have to be made in a planned manner. Haphazard Growth of these constructions create serious serial, economic and engironmental, law and order problem. All this required immediate action and immediate possession of the land in dispute so as to prevent haphazard growth of constructions and various problems connected therewith- The Bench consequently, held that the provisions of Section 5-A of Act were rightly dispensed with. 8. In our opinion, similar is the situation in respect of the present scheme. 9. In paragraph 13 and 17 of the petition, a bald statement has been made that there does not exist any urgency on the basis of which the Governor would have formed an opinion dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority by Sri Om Pal Singh, the allegations made in paragraph 13 and 17 of the writ petition have been denied and material has been placed before the Court to show that there was urgency for the acquisition of the land. Annexure-3 to this counter affidavit is a letter addressed by the Meerut Development Authority to the District Land Acquisition officer alongwith the proposal which was sent to the Government for acquisition of the land in dispute for the Housing Colony. In this letter, it has been categorically stated that the land was urgently required and in case it is not so acquired, there is a likelihood of unauthorised constructions coming on the land in dispute. In this letter, it has been categorically stated that the land was urgently required and in case it is not so acquired, there is a likelihood of unauthorised constructions coming on the land in dispute. It has been avered that immediately after the issue of the notification u/s 4 of the Act, there is a likelihood that colonizers will commence purchasing the land sought to be acquired in order to create difficulties in acquisition of the land. It has also been stated that the public on coming to know of the proposed acquisition have started making unauthorised constructions and also started selling small pieces of land. In our opinion, considering the facts of the present case, there was sufficient material with the State Government on the basis of which it could have formed the opinion that it was a matter of urgency and provisions of Section 5-A of the Act be dispensed with. It is not a case where it can be said that there was no material at all before the Government in order to enable it to form opinion in regard to the existence of urgency. 10. In State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi and Others, AIR 1986 SC 2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the validity of notification u/s 4 of the Act wherein Section 5-A of the Act had been dispensed with. This case also related to the city of Meerut. It has been observed by the Supreme Court that the provisions of housing accommodation has become a matter of national urgency. Judicial notice can be taken of this fact and as such it took the view that in the case of proceedings relating to acquisition of land for providing housing sites, it would be appropriate to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition in that case was held to be valid. In our opinion, the principle laid down in the case of State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi (supra) would apply to the present case also. There is no dispute that in the instant case the land is sought to be acquired for a Housing Colony. 11. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the two cases of this Court wherein the question of dispensing with the provision of Section 5-A of the Act came up for consideration. There is no dispute that in the instant case the land is sought to be acquired for a Housing Colony. 11. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the two cases of this Court wherein the question of dispensing with the provision of Section 5-A of the Act came up for consideration. The first case relied on by the learned Counsel is a decision in Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. 1990 UP LB EC 866. In that case, one of us was a party to the decision and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was quashed by this Court on the ground that there was no material before the State Government to come to the conclusion that the case was of urgency and the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act be dispensed with. That case, in our opinion, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, it was not an acquisition for a Housing Colony. Further, in that case, initially the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UP ST DC) had acquired a big area of thousand of act in village Gulistanpur in 1981-82. The Petitioner in that case had filed (sic) obtions to the proposal for acquisition of the land. Ultimately, when a notification was issued on 30-5-1985, u/s 4 of the Act, the land belonging to the Petitioners was excluded from the acquisition. When the land was sought to be acquired again in 1989 by a notification dated 28-8-1989, after seven years the Petitioner objected to the same. This time Section 5-A was dispensed with. This Court, in view of the fact that the Petitioner's land had earlier been exempted, quashed the notification u/s 6 of the Act as the Petitioner was not given any opportunity for filing objection u/s 5-A of the Act. Further, in that case, notification u/s 6 of the Act had not been issued for more that several months even after the issue of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. It was in these circumstances that this Court held that the State Government did not apply its mind on the question of urgency and set aside the notification. 12. The second case relied by the learned Counsel in Ram Narain Rai v. State of U.P. 1991 AWC 340 . It was in these circumstances that this Court held that the State Government did not apply its mind on the question of urgency and set aside the notification. 12. The second case relied by the learned Counsel in Ram Narain Rai v. State of U.P. 1991 AWC 340 . In this case, it was held that the question of urgency is a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government and it is not open to the courts to examine the propriety or correctness of the satisfaction of an objective appraisal of facts. The opinion of the appropriate Government can only be challenged in the Court of law if it can be shown that the Government never applied its mind to the matter or that the action of the Government is malafide. 13. learned Counsel has urged that in the instant case the Government has not applied its mind on the question of urgency. So far as the question of malafide is concerned, the notification has not been challenged on the ground of malafide. We have already stated that the proposal for acquisition were sent by Meerut Development Authority and therein facts had been given as to why it thought that the provisions u/s 5-A of the Act be dispensed with. ' It cannot be, therefore, said that the Government did not apply its mind on this question. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 14. In regard to the second submission, we do think it necessary that in case, the Petitioner's construction is standing on the land prior to the date of the issue of the notification u/s 4 of the Act, the said question should have been considered by the Meerut Development Authority before acquiring the land 15. In the result, this petition and the other group of petitions connected with this petition are dismissed with the following directions. 16. It will be open to the Petitioners to make representation before the Meerut Development Authority for exemption of their land on which there existed constructions, residential commercial and industrial, before publication of the impugned notifications u/s 4 of the Act, within two month from today. 16. It will be open to the Petitioners to make representation before the Meerut Development Authority for exemption of their land on which there existed constructions, residential commercial and industrial, before publication of the impugned notifications u/s 4 of the Act, within two month from today. If such representations are filed before the Meerut Development Authority, it will investigate into the matter and get the plots concerned surveyed and thereafter decide it on the basis of material produced by the Petitioners and its own records, after sending intimations to the concerned parties of the date on which the matter with be considered by it. This decision shall be taken by the Meerut Development Authority as far as possible within two months from the date of receipt of representation along-with the certified copy of this order. Deciston so taken shall be communcated to the concerned parties within two weeks thereafter. In case, the Meerut Development Authority finds that the Petitioners plot have pre-notification constructions it will make necessary recommendation to the State Government for exemption. However, if the Meerut Development outhority decides against any of the Petitioners, it will be open to them to make representation before the Government, within a month after the decision of the Meerut Development Authority and the Government will look into the grievance of the Petitioners and pass appropriate order expeditiously. 17. Till Government decides the question of grant of exemption, status quo, as on today, shall be maintained by the parties. . 18. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.