JUDGMENT : D.S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Rnjesh Ji Verma learned Counsel appearing for Sudhar Samiti Gagan Vihar, Gagan Vihar, Bhopura. Ghaziabad through its Secretary. Sri V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri A. N. Shukla, learned standing counsel representing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. For the purpose of providing residential colony to the general public under Planned Development Scheme by Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, the appropriate Government initiated proceeding under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act. and issued Notification dated 23rd February, 1991 u/s 4 of the Act. The notification stated that in the opinion of the Rajyapal, provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were applicable to the land sought to be acquired as the land was urgently required for the purpose of providing residential colony, as aforesaid, and making enquiry as contemplated by Section 5A of the Act would cause delay. Therefore, the Rajyapal, exercising powers u/s 17(4) of the Act, dispensed with application of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act depriving the persons aggrieved by the acquisition of opportunity to file objection. 3. The notification u/s 4 dated 23rd February, 1991 was followed by the Notification dated 4th May, 1991 containing declaration u/s 6 of the Act. This notification also stated that as he was satisfied that the matter was urgent, the Rajyapal had directed the Collector, u/s 17(1) of the Act, to take possession of the land in question within fifteen day (sic) after the publication of notice u/s 9(1) of the Act notwithstanding (sic) fact that no award u/s 11 of the Act had been given. 4. The possession of the land was taken on 31st May, 1991 as evident from the memo of possession appended to the counter-affidavit as Annexure -IV. 5. On 26th July, 1991 the Petitioner instituted in this Court instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the Notification dated 23rd February, 1991, issued u/s 4 of the Act. 6. 5. On 26th July, 1991 the Petitioner instituted in this Court instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the Notification dated 23rd February, 1991, issued u/s 4 of the Act. 6. The learned Counsel of the Petitioner contends that the matter of providing residential colony cannot be treated to be so urgent as to entitle the appropriate Government to resort to the provisions of Section 17 depriving the persons having interest in the land sought to be acquired of opportunity to file objection u/s 5A of the Act; and that being so, according to learned Counsel, entire proceeding of acquisition is improper and illegal. 7. Countering the submission of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submit that these days provision for housing accommodation for public in general has become a matter of national urgency and, as such, it was fully justified on the part of the appropriate Government to dispense with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act depriving the interested persons of opportunity to object the impugned acquisition. In support of the contention reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of U.P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 251 . 8. After giving due consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has considerable force. The question whether acquisition of land for providing residential buildings for public in general can be treated to be a matter of urgency was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision given in State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and Ors. (supra) and it was squarely held that the provision for housing accommodation for public in these days had become a matter of national urgency justifying the decision of the appropriate Government to resort to the provisions of Section 17(1) and dispense with the compliance of the Section 5A of the Act; and that judicial notice of this fact could be taken by the Court. 9. 9. Viewed the facts and circumstances of the ease and the contention of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner from this angle, there ran be no doubt that the impugned land acquisition proceeding is neither improper nor illegal and must be upheld, 10. In the result, the petition faits and is dismissed summarily. There is no order as to costs. The interim order dated 30th July, 1991 shall stand discharged.