Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 15.11.2000 and Section 6 Declaration in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 30.1.2001 of the Land Acquisition Act, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that the Government of Pondicherry seeking to acquire the petitioner's land since 1998, the petitioner was objecting for acquiring the land and hence the petitioner's son sent a notice to the respondent on 19.7.1998 and that the respondent issued 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 15.11.2000 for the proposed acquisition of the land comprised in R.S.No.123/2 and 104/12 to the extent of 0.38.50 hectare; that in the acquisition proceedings it was stated that the said land was acquired for ostensible public purpose; that in the said Notification it was stated that 5-A Inquiry was dispensed with; that the petitioner submitted his objection on 20.2.2001 on the very same date, and the respondent authorities issued Section 6 declaration vide G.O. Ms. No. 4 dated 30.1.2001 and that the said G.O. was published in the Government Gazette on 20.2.2001; that the declaration empowers the second respondent to take possession of the lands on the expiry of 15 days of the date of publication of notice mentioned in Section 9(1); that to the knowledge of the petitioner Section 9(1) Notice has not been published; that more than 100 days have been lapsed, but the acquisition process is yet to be concluded, which shows that there is no real urgency in the matter; that in the said circumstances, the petitioner has no option, but to file the present writ petition to issue a writ of caertioarari. 3. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that at the instance of the Government of Pondicherry, the respondents have initiated land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of ravine reclamation at Kalapet Revenue village; that the site Selection Committee Constituted by the Government inspected the place in Kalapet village to examine the spot of the site in R.S.No.104/12 and 123/2 on 9.12.1998 and recommended the site comprised in R.S.No.104/12 and 123/2 for the ravine reclamation purpose in Kalapet village; that the Land Acquisition Officer inspected the site on 3.7.2000 and considering the nature and the purpose for which the acquisition is sought for by the Department of Agriculture and having regard to the ravine reclamation, the question of poramboke site does not arise for consideration; that the site in question are upper berth; that during the rainy seasons rain water gets stagnated without outlet thereby causing damage to the agricultural lands in the said village, besides causing soil erosion; that in order to avoid damage to crops and soil erosion, the Department of Agriculture requested the Government to take steps in ravine reclamation at the Kalapet village; that the respondent submits that considering the nature of the immediate need for the purpose of ravine reclamation, the Government have satisfied specially for invoking urgency clause to acquire the lands comprised in the above said survey numbers in Kalapet village and issued G.O.Ms.73 on 15.11.2000 under Section 4(1) of the Act and Section 4(1) Notification issued by the Government invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act in G.O.Ms.73 dated 15.11.2000 and was published in 4 modes, which is as follows: 1. Published in Tamil Daily 'Dinakaran' on 18.11.2000 2.Published in English Daily 'Hindu" on 20.11.2000 3.Published in the State Gazette No.48 on 28.11.2000 4. Public affixture made on 20.12.2000 In view of the emergency clause, Clause 5-A inquiry was dispensed with; that the Government issued declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No.4 dated 30.1.2001 and it was published in the following modes; 1. Public affixture made on 20.12.2000 In view of the emergency clause, Clause 5-A inquiry was dispensed with; that the Government issued declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O. Ms. No.4 dated 30.1.2001 and it was published in the following modes; 1. Published in Tamil Daily 'Dinamalar' on 1.2.2001 2.Published in English Daily 'The Hindu" on 2.2.2001 3.Published in the State Gazette No.8 on 20.2.2001 4.Public affixture made on 7.2.2001 The respondent would further deny the allegation made against the Government of Pondicherry; that the Government have applied its mind and found satisfied about the urgent need of the site under acquisition; that even supposing that there were any delay by the executive in passing the Notification status that would not constitute a ground to challenge the acquisition proceedings; that the respondent submits that the Government is taking steps to execute the scheme project of ravine reclamation in Kalapet village; that the interim prayer sought to stay all the further proceedings by the petitioner is not sustainable; that in the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and as such, this writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents as well. 5. During the arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner besides reiterating the facts brought forth in the writ petition would further submit that the 4(1) Notification in this matter had been effected on 15.11.2000 and Gazette publication was made on 28.11.2000, the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was on 30.1.2001 and the publication in the gazette on 20.2.2001 and they served with another 4(1) Notification as a personal service on 2.2.2001. The learned counsel would then point out that the question of dispensing with 5-A Enquiry arises in those cases where the issue cannot be postponed for over 30 days. Secondly, where the Rule Nisi is issued Section 106 of the Evidence Act comes into play special knowledge of the person is the burden to establish is on the petitioner; that if the Government goes to contend urgency in this matter, they have to show that relevant materials are made available to warrant invocation of the urgent provisions. Secondly, where the Rule Nisi is issued Section 106 of the Evidence Act comes into play special knowledge of the person is the burden to establish is on the petitioner; that if the Government goes to contend urgency in this matter, they have to show that relevant materials are made available to warrant invocation of the urgent provisions. The learned counsel would then point out that the delay by itself shall not vitiate the proceedings but the delay must be justified that no whisper nor explanation comes forth from the Government for the delay and therefore the delay under these circumstances vitiates the proceedings. The learned counsel at this juncture would cite two judgments. The first one reported in OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2504) and the second judgment in BHAGATH SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 436). So far as the first judgment cited above is concerned, it is held: "It is now time for us to refer to certain latter decisions of this court to which strong reliance was placed by Shrit Mohta, learned senior counsel for NOIDA. In the case of A.P.Sareen v. State of U.P., (1997) 9 SCC 359 : (1997)AIR SCW 1341), a two Judge Bench of this court consisting of Ramaswamy J. and G.T.Nanavati, J. had to consider the question whether the need for urgent possession underlying acquisition proceedings could cease to exist only because of bureaucratic inadvertance. It was held on the facts of that case that urgency continued so long as the scheme was not initiated, action taken and process completed. It is, of course, true that while deciding this question, it is observed that it is well settled legal position that urgency can be said to exist when land proposed to be acquired is needed for planned development of the city or town, etc. The said observation clearly shows that in appropriate case when acquisition is needed for planned development of city or town urgency provisions can be invoked. This aspect is legislatively recognized by enactment of Section (1A) by U.P. Legislature. But the said observations cannot be read to mean that in every case of planned development of city or town necessarily and almost automatically urgency clause has to be invoked and inquiry under Section 5-A is to be dispensed with. This aspect is legislatively recognized by enactment of Section (1A) by U.P. Legislature. But the said observations cannot be read to mean that in every case of planned development of city or town necessarily and almost automatically urgency clause has to be invoked and inquiry under Section 5-A is to be dispensed with. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The aforesaid observations cannot be held to be laying down any absolute proposition that whenever any acquisition is to take place for planned development of city or town, Section 5-A should be treated to be almost otios or inoperative. Such is not the ratio of the aforesaid decision and nothing to that effect can even impliedly be read in the aforesaid observation which is of general nature. It only suggests that in appropriate cases, urgency clause can be invoked when the land is proposed to be acquired for planned development of city or town." 6. The second judgment cited above reported in (supra) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 436, it is held: "It was then urged for the appellant that there was a delay of full one year between the S.4(1) Notification and S.6 Declaration and this showed the lethargy of the Government and this would reveal that Government would not have lost anything if only a hearing under Section 5-A was given to the owner so that they could place their grievances before the Government in this connection, we may state that the respondents have explained the delay as having been caused inasmuch as of various steps were required to be taken to finalize the proceedings. It was necessary to issue newspaper publication and also make local publication of the substance of the S.4(1) notification. There was also delay on account of following other administrative procedures. In view the above explanation we are not prepared to hold that the latter delay between S.4(1) notification and S.6 declaration has any great impact on the subjective satisfaction arrived at when orders dispensing with the S.5-A inquiry were passed earlier." 7. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that it is not correct to state that Section 4(1) notification was effected on 15.11.2000 but the exact date on which it was done was 28.11.2000. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that it is not correct to state that Section 4(1) notification was effected on 15.11.2000 but the exact date on which it was done was 28.11.2000. Section 6 declaration was made on 30.1.2001; that as it is argued on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 4(1) notification need not be issued to the party on personal service at all, it is only general publication that is effected. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) would cite a judgment reported in A.P.SAREEN AND OTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [(1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 359], wherein it is held: "While the Government forms an opinion that the lands are urgently needed for a public purpose, notification under Section 4(1) could be issued and published in the Gazette while dispensing with enquiry under Section 5-A. Giving a gap of one day, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act could be published in the Gazette. Notice under sub-section (1) of Section 9 should be given and on the expiry of 15 days thereafter, possession could be taken. The land stands vested in the State under Section 17(2) read with Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Since enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with, as provided under the Act, 80% of the compensation was required to be given to the claimants. In this case, instead of adopting the said procedure, after publication of the notification under Section 4(1),the authorities published the notification in the local newspapers in English as well as Hindi and also substance thereof in the locality and thereafter personal notices were issued to the owners of the lands. After completion of this process, proceedings were put up before the Government for publication of the declaration under Section 6, which came to be made after about 9 months of publication of notification under Section 4(1). In this backdrop, the need for urgent possession was dissipated by bureaucratic inadvertence and the urgency did not cease. Urgency continues as long as the scheme is not initiated, action taken and the process completed." 8. In this backdrop, the need for urgent possession was dissipated by bureaucratic inadvertence and the urgency did not cease. Urgency continues as long as the scheme is not initiated, action taken and the process completed." 8. In so far as the next point that Section 6 declaration is to be made or signed and the same regarding 4(1) Notification, it has to be published etc., are concerned the learned A.G.P. would cite yet another judgment reported in SRINIWAS RAMNATH KHATOD V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (SC) (2002 {1} CTC 569), wherein it is held that in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Legislature purposely omitted to use the words 'Publication' or 'Declaration' in first proviso to Section 6 - Declaration must be made within one year from the date of last publication of Notification under Section 4 – Publication under Section 6 (i) may take place at later date – Such publication is only ministerial act – Last date prescribed under Section 6(ii) is for purpose of computing limitation under Section 11-A – of the Act." 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) at this juncture would exhort that as though there is a limitation a picture is given by the other side, but in fact there is no limitation at all, that in the first case cited it is 11 months and in the second case cited it is more than one year. So that the purpose of acquisition for preventing the soil erosion that there is no legal requirement that it has to be completed within a particular period and therefore on such argument, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) would ultimately pray to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 10. In consideration of the pleadings of the parties, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein has come forward to question the validity of the acquisition of his land as per notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15.11.2000 and subsequently the declaration under Section 6 of the same Act dated 30.1.2001 by the respondents and pray to quash the same. 11. 11. The property sought to be acquired from the petitioner is a landed property measuring 0.38.50 hectare falling under R.S.No.123/2 and 104/12.On the part of the Government they would state that 5-A enquiry was dispensed with in the case of acquisition, since it is an emergency acquisition for ostensible public purpose, that the declaration empowers the respondents to take possession of the land on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned under Section 9(1) of the Act. 12. On the part of the petitioner, he would testify the validity of the acquisition proceedings initiated and carried out pertaining to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner mentioned supra that in spite of the lapse of 100 days, the acquisition process was not concluded thereby revealing that there had been no real urgency in the matter of acquisition of his land. On such contention the petitioner would seek to quash the acquisition proceedings including 4(1) notification dated 15.11.2000 and Section 6 declaration dated 30.1.2001. 13. On the other hand,on the part of the Government they would urge that the Site Selection Committee constituted by the Government in respect of the place in Kalapet village examined the spot and recommended the site comprised in R.S.No.104/12 and 123/2 for the ravine reclamation purpose in Kalapet village and even thereafter that Land Acquisition Officer having inspected the site and in full consideration of the nature and the purpose of acquisition and in further consideration no other suitable land was available in and around the area of acquisition of the land of the petitioner, the site in question being the upper berth and during rainy seasons rain water gets stagnated without an outlet thereby causing damages to the agricultural land in the village, besides causing to the soil erosion and in order to avoid the damage to crops and the soil erosion the Department of Agriculture requested the Government to take steps in ravine reclamation and in due consideration of the request and the immediate need for the purpose sought to be achieved, the Government having become satisfied invoking the urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Act, acquired the lands comprised in the said R.S.number at Kalapet village causing the necessary publication as contemplated by law, the acquisition has been completed as per the contentions of the Respondents/Government. 14. 14. In the whole of the above proceeding which has been made making use of the emergency provision provided by law, since the acquisition was urgently needed for the ostensible reasons of avoiding soil erosion thereby averting the damage to agricultural crops in the whole of the process of acquisition by the respondents/government, the second respondent herein, this court is not able to see any legal infirmity or inconsistency or non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore for those grounds alleged on the part of the petitioner on facts which are also not established, the acquisition proceeding does not in any manner require to be quashed as it is prayed for on the part of the petitioner. In short, there is no violation or tangible reasons alleged or established for this court to cause interference into the acquisition proceedings initiated, carried on and completed by the respondents and hence the interference of this court sought to be made into the said acquisition proceedings of the respondents is neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case and in result the above writ petition becomes only liable to be dismissed. 15. In result, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also dismissed.