SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) I had the advantage of reading the judgment authored by my esteemed and learned brother Madan B. Lokur wherein the rudiments governing the law of acquisition have been exhaustively dealt with and applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is neither necessary nor even expected of me to refer to the facts and/or the law applicable to the bunch of writ petitions dealt with in the said judgment at any length. Suffices it to say that in paragraph 7 of the judgment, 5 grounds on the basis of which the notifications in question have been challenged are noticed. As far as the first four contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners for impugning the notification are concerned, they have found no favour with the court and were rejected. For the reasons stated in this judgment by my learned brother as well as the reasons recorded by me in the judgment given in w. P. (C) No. 4789/1995, titled as Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Society and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , I would respectively concur with the view taken and without any reservation reject these contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. ( 2 ) IN relation to ground no. 5, with great hesitance, I beg to differ with the view taken by my brother, that too to a limited extent. ( 3 ) GROUND No. 5, as noticed in the judgment reads as under:- there was no reason for invoking the provisions of Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the Act in respect of the acquisition of 1337 bighas and 04 biswas of land thereby denying to the Petitioners a valuable right of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act followed by a hearing that was required to be given. Alternatively, even if there was some urgency and the respondents rightly invoked Section 17 (1) of the Act, there was no application of mind at all to the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, which enabled the Respondents to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the act. In view of the decisions of this Court, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, there should have been a specific application of mind by the Lt. Governor to the provisions of 17 (4) of the Act. In view of the decisions of this Court, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, there should have been a specific application of mind by the Lt. Governor to the provisions of 17 (4) of the Act. ( 4 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the act were invoked by the authorities concerned, after due application of mind. The supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that planned Development of delhi , particularly in relation to residential colonies or staff quarters would be an emergent public purpose . The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Aflatoon and Ors. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors. 9 (1998) 6 SCC 1 , has been followed with approval by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decisions. Furthermore, this Court has expressed a definite view that planned Development of Delhi would be a public purpose for which the provisions of Section 17 (1) could be invoked. In fact, in the case of Bhagat Singh vs. State of u. P. and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 384 and all other controversies related thereto were put to an end and the petitioners can hardly challenge the notification under Section 4 and 17 (1) of the Act, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present cases. ( 5 ) THE Lt. Governor of Delhi had duly and effectively applied his mind for invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, which of course, was subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, but prior to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act by the competent authorities. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act empowers the competent authorities to issue direction/order under Section 17 (4) of the Act, even subsequent to the notification under Section 4. In the present cases, the parties were put at notice by issuance of the notification under Section 4, itself, that the Government intends to invoke the provisions of Section 17 (1) as well as 17 (4) of the Act. Whatever lacuna remained was duly provided for and there was due application of mind by the Lt. Governor prior to the issuance of the declaration made by the authorities under Section 6 of the act. Whatever lacuna remained was duly provided for and there was due application of mind by the Lt. Governor prior to the issuance of the declaration made by the authorities under Section 6 of the act. Again, it is not necessary for me to dwell on this issue at any greater length as in the judgment of Vasant Kunj Enclave Housing Society and Ors. vs. Union of India and ors. , W. P. (C) No. 4789/1995, I have dealt with this issue at great length and formed a view that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act are not vitiated for non-application of mind in issuing a direction under Section 17 (1) or 17 (4) of the Act. The nature and scope of administrative subjective satisfaction contemplated under Section 17 (4) of the Act is sufficiently indicated in the records produced before the Court and it may not be appropriate for this Court to find fault with such satisfaction for the reason that it is possible to infer another view from the records produced before the Court. The powers vested in the authorities under Section 5-A is administrative and still the authorities are required to comply with the principles of natural justice and apply their mind at the appropriate stage and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I have already noticed that there is record to support the submissions of the respondents that the Lt. Governor had duly applied his mind and satisfied himself in regard to the need for invoking the provisions of Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act. ( 6 ) THE reasons stated in the said judgment may be read as a part of this view expressed by me in the present writ petition. ( 7 ) IT will be appropriate to notice here that though number of notifications in these two cases are different, but the subject matter as well as the file of the department is common as the whole land was sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi , in one for construction of staff quarters in Vasant Kunj, while in the other for development of Vasant Kunj Residential Complexes, in different phases of that area. In the other judgment I have referred to the notings recorded by different officers as well as the noting recorded by the Lt. Governor in his own hand-writing, invoking the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, in relation to different phases which were described in term of zones. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, including the reasons stated by me in the detailed judgment (W. P. (C) No. 4789/1995), I would dismiss all the 25 writ petitions referred in the beginning of the judgment, and leave the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .