JUDGMENT P.K. Saikia, J. 1. In the present writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there are, under challenge, as many as five Notifications, published under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of (a) 12.25 acres of land in Mouja Bishalgarh sheet No. 1/P under file No. DM/W/LA/BLG/03/2011; (b) 20.18 acres of land in Mouja Bishalgarh No. 4/P under file No. DM/W/LA/BLG/7/2011; (c) 47.26 acres of land in Mouja Bishalgarh sheet No. 5/P under file No. F.DM/W/LA/BLG/8/2011; (d) 5.51 acres of land in Mouja Bishalgarh sheet No. 7/P under file No. F.DM/W/LA/BLG/6/2011 and (e) 16.11 acres of land in Mouja Brajapur sheet No. 1/P under file No. F.DM/W/LA/BLG/4/2011. The facts, necessary for disposal of the present proceeding, are, in brief, as under: (i) The State of Tripura (respondent No. 2) had issued five (5) Notifications under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act'), published in different newspapers between 30th May, 2011, and 10th August, 2011, for acquisition of, in total, 102.31 acres of land for construction of railway tracks popularly known as Agartala - Sabroom Railway Tracks. (ii) It is the case of the writ petitioners that for construction of the proposed railway line between 10 Km and 16 Km in the Agartala - Sabroom railway track, a joint survey was conducted by the NF Railway and the Land Acquisition Department, Govt. of Tripura, in 2008-2009, the alignment, for construction of the railway line, having been done by an authority as famous as the Railway India Technical and Engineering Services (in short, RITES) and, in due course, the land, required for construction of the railway track, had also been identified and red pillars, in the middle of proposed railway track, and white pillars, on the outer limit of the path, were posted indicating that the land, between those pillars, would be acquired for the purpose of construction of the proposed railway line between 10 Km and 16 Km of the Agartala-Sabroom Railway Track. (iii) Pursuant to the above decision, the process for acquisition was initiated without invoking the provisions of Section 17 (1) as well as 17 (4) of the LA Act inasmuch as respondent No. 2, i.e., State of Tripura, issued Notification, under Section 4, followed by Notification under Section 6 and Notification under Section 9(3) and 9(4) of the LA Act. (iv) However, after the finalization of the alignment of the proposed railway line, which was to pass through Bishalgarh-Mouja and Brajapur Mouja and posting of pillars, as aforesaid, on either side of the path as well as in the middle of the path, in question, and after issuance of notices under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the LA Act, the respondents abandoned the alignment, so finalized, which, as mentioned hereinbefore, was drawn by RITES. (v) On abandoning the original alignment, respondent 2 issued fresh Notifications, under Section 17(1) as well as 17(4) of the LA Act, for acquisition of the said 102.31 acres of land in order to construct railway line between 10 Km and 16 Km of railway track. By issuing notifications under Section 17(1) as well as 17(4), the respondents dispensed with the requirement of issuing notices under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the LA Act on the purported ground of urgency involved in completion of the railway project, in question. 2. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. NC Pal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents. 3. Mr. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the alignment, though finalized, has been abandoned and fresh process has been initiated, and, that too, by invoking the emergency clause in Section 17(4) of the LA Act not for any urgency in the execution of the project or to meet public interest involved therein, but to satisfy some influential persons, who have vested interest in having the alignment diverted from the original one to the newly proposed alignment. 4. 4. To bring home their claim that the decision to abandon the original alignment in favour of the new one was taken not in the public interest nor to meet the deadline of the urgency of the project, in question, but to satisfy some influential persons, it has been contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the construction of the proposed railway track, on the new alignment, would not only displace more people, but it would also cause more damage to properties, both public and private, than the damage/displacement, which would be caused, if the original alignment were maintained. 5. In support of the claim of petitioners that the decision to abandon the alignment, in question, was taken to satisfy few people, who have vested interest in changing the alignment from the original to new one, it is also alleged, in this regard, that such a decision was taken at the behest of the members of political parties and their cahoots and this becomes evident from the fact that the change, in the alignment, in question, is sought to be made surreptitiously. 6. Referring to the fact that the original alignment was drawn by an organization as famous as RITES, it is also alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the new alignment is done by persons or authorities, who do not have the knowledge, expertise and skill of the RITES and this fact reflects that the change, in the alignment, is not bona fide. 7. It is further pointed out, on behalf of the petitioners, that being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the decision to change the alignment, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the decision to change the alignment, in question, is biased, arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners, therefore, seek issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the impugned notifications. 8. In order to fortify the claim of the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was really no urgency involved in the execution of the project and the emergency clause, embodied in the LA Act, could not have been invoked in the present case, Mr. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the decisions in Tika Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 689 , Nana Kishore Gupta Vs. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the decisions in Tika Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 689 , Nana Kishore Gupta Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 282 , and Darshan Lal Nagpak Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 327 . 9. Before we deal with the decisions, which have been so referred to, and relied upon, by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, we may point out that in Nand Kishore Gupta Vs. State of U.P.; reported in (2010) 10 SCC 282 , the Supreme Court held as follows: 93. We have deliberately quoted the above part of the High Court judgment only to show the meticulous care taken by the High Court in examining as to whether there was material before the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. We are completely convinced that there was necessity in this Project considering the various reasons like enormousness of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of appellants who would have required to be heard and the time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the Project had lingered already from 2001 till 2008. We do not see any reason why we should take a different view than what is taken by the High Court. 94. The law on this subject was thoroughly discussed in Tika Ram v. State of U.P. to which one of us (V. S. Sirpurkar) was a party. In that decision also, we had reiterated that the satisfaction required on the part of the executive in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A is a matter subject to satisfaction and can be assailed only on the ground that there was no sufficient material to dispense with the enquiry or that the order suffered from malice. 95. It was also found on facts in Tika Ram v. State of U.P. that there was no charge of mala fides leveled against the exercise of power and there was material available in support of the satisfaction on the part of the executive justifying the invocation of the provisions of Section 17. The position is no different in the present case. The position is no different in the present case. The High Court in the present matter went a step ahead and examined the bulky original record itself to find that there was full material available. 96. We are not impressed by the argument that the encroachment issue was not a relevant factor. This argument was based on the reported decision in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. It must be said that the actual scenario in that case was different. In that case, the Court was considering the acquisition of area of about 500 acres comprising of 437 plots, whereas, in the present case, the area to be acquired for the Expressway alone was more that 1600 ha. This is apart from the 25 million sq.m. of land which was liable to be acquired for the purposes of development of five land parcels. There was interlinking between the acquisition of land for the highway and the acquisition of land for establishing the five townships. 97. In Om Prakash v. State of U.P. there was unexplained delay after issuance of Section 4 notification, which is not the case here. Therefore, we do not think that what has been said in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. would be apposite here. Every case has to be decided on its own facts. This is apart from the fact that it is not specifically laid down in Om Prakash v. State of U.P. that the encroachment was never a relevant factor for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. Again we hasten to add that this was not the only factor considered by the State Government and even the High Court has not held the same to be the only factor for dispensing with the enquiry. 98. In view of the law laid down in the last judgment on this issue i.e. Tika Ram v. State of U.P. we are of the clear opinion that the challenge by the appellants on the ground that there was no urgency and, therefore, the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act should not have been dispensed with, cannot be accepted. We hold accordingly. 10. We hold accordingly. 10. From the observations, made in Nand Kishore Gupta (supra), it becomes clear that when a project is enormous in nature, there is likelihood of encroachment, number of persons, who would be required to be heard, would also be large and the fact that the project has already lingered for a number of years, are factors, which can impel the Government invoke the emergency clause, as embodied in Section 17(1) of the LA Act. The decision, in Nand Kishore Gupta (supra), shows, in tune with the decision, in Tika Ram Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 689 , that it is the satisfaction of the executive, as regards dispensing with the requirement of notices under Sections 4, 5 and 6, which is material and such a satisfaction is not to be interfered with except when there is no sufficient material to dispense with the enquiry or when the decision to dispense with the notices suffers from mala fide. 11. What logically follows from the above is that in the present case, for change of the alignment, certain reasons have been shown by the respondents and if these reasons are found to be relevant to the taking of the decision, which the respondents have eventually taken, this Court would not interfere unless the malice or lack of bona fide is successfully established by the petitioners. 12. While dealing with the above aspect of the case, one may also refer to the case of Darshan Lal Nagpak Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 327 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:- It needs no emphasis that majority of the projects undertaken by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the implementation of which requires public money, are meant to benefit the people at large or substantially a large segment of the society. If what the High Court has observed is treated as a correct statement of law, then in all such cases the acquiring authority will be justified in invoking Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the inquiry contemplated under Section 5-A, which would necessarily result in depriving the owner of his property without opportunity to raise legitimate objection. If what the High Court has observed is treated as a correct statement of law, then in all such cases the acquiring authority will be justified in invoking Section 17 of the Act and dispense with the inquiry contemplated under Section 5-A, which would necessarily result in depriving the owner of his property without opportunity to raise legitimate objection. However, as has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, the invocation of the urgency provisions can be justified only if there exists real emergency which cannot brook delay of even few weeks or months. In other words, the urgency provisions can be invoked only if even small delay of few weeks or months may frustrate the public purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. Nobody can contest that the purpose for which the applicants' land and land belonging to others was sought to be acquired was a public purpose but it is one thing to say that the State and its instrumentality wants to execute a project of public importance without loss of time and it is an altogether different thing to say that for execution of such project, private individuals should be deprived of their property without even being heard. 13. What the decision, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), shows is that the mere fact that the project involve public interest is, in itself, not sufficient to dispense with the requirement of issuing notices under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the LA Act. 14. In so far as the scope of judicial review, in matters, such as, the present one, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred us to the decision in Dhanu Taluka Environment Protection Group & Anr. Vs. 14. In so far as the scope of judicial review, in matters, such as, the present one, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred us to the decision in Dhanu Taluka Environment Protection Group & Anr. Vs. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1991 (2) SCC 539 , wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: It is primarily for the Governments concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. The Court's role is restricted to examine whether the Government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision. 15. What the decision, in Dhanu Taluka Environment Protection Group (supra), shows is that it is really for the Government to take various decisions in matters of public importance and what the Court can examine, in exercise of its power of judicial review, is to ensure that the Government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored nor overlooked any material consideration nor has the Government's decision been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations. 16. So situated, let us see how the respondents have reacted to the allegations made against them by the petitioners. We have found that on being served with notices, respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 have entered appearance and contested the proceeding by filing a common affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, respondents have contended that there has been a long standing demand for extension of railway tracks to the different parts of the State of Tripura and in order to address such genuine demand of the people of Tripura, which has strategic importance as well, it was decided to extend railway tracks from Agartala to Sabroom and, in pursuance of this decision, a survey was conducted in consultation with the concerned Departments of the Govt. of Tripura and survey of the proposed railway tracks from Agartala to Sabroom was completed in 2007 itself and, on the basis of the survey, the State of Tripura (respondent No. 2) was requested to initiate process for acquisition of land required for construction of proposed railway tracks. However, it was, later on, discovered that the proposed railway track between 10 (Ten) Km and 16(Sixteen) Km in Agartala - Sabroom Railway Tracks would pass through a thickly populated area and would cause displacement of a large number of people apart from causing colossal damage to the properties, both public and private. Hence, the people, who were going to be affected by such a railway track, raised objections against the acquisition of the land required for construction of proposed railway tracks. Since it became impossible for respondents, to acquire land, already surveyed, it was decided to re-consider the matter afresh keeping in view the volume of damage to the properties as well as the number of people likely to be displaced by proposed railway line and with this aim in view and also to find out the best possible alternative alignment, the NF Railway and the State Government decided to discuss the matter with all concerned. The discussion, so initiated, led to the drawing up of as many as four alternative alignments for construction of proposed railway tracks between 10 Km and 16 km. The alignments, so drawn, were discussed in a meeting, on 20.03.2010, which was attended to by different authorities as well as representatives from cross section of society. In the said meeting, the merit and demerit of all alignments were discussed, debated and, ultimately, the alignment, at serial No. 3, placed at Annexure-R/I to the affidavit-in-opposition, was finalized inasmuch as the displacement of people and loss of properties, both public and private, were found to be minimal in the event of construction of railway line on the alignment in terms of serial No. 3 in Annexure-R/I to the affidavit-in-opposition. 17. 17. The further case of respondents is that respondent No. 1, Union of India has made available necessary funds required for execution of the project, in question, but the Union of India has also fixed a deadline within which the project needs to be completed so as avoid the possibility of exceeding the original estimated budgetary allotment and also to avoid other serious complications arising out of delay in executing such a project, because complicacies, inherent in delay, may even throw the entire project out of gear. Consequently, an outer limit has been fixed for completion of the project under consideration and such outer limit is not far away from now, although the volume of work yet to be executed/attended to is still enormous. In such a nerve-racking and distressful scenario, respondent No. 2 as forced to issue Notifications under Section. 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act dispensing with provisions of Section 5A of the LA Act. 18. Regarding allegation that the change of alignment was done at the behest of some people having vested interest and that such change was done with mala fide intention, it has been contended by the respondents that the change was necessitated by a stream of extremely compelling causes over which the respondents have had no control whatsoever. 19. In respect of issuance of Notification under Section 9(3) and 9(4) of the LA Act, it has been submitted by the respondents that issuance of such a Notice cannot be made a ground to assail issuance of Notification under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, when the Land Acquisition Collector (respondent No. 3) issued such a notification by observing all the rules and procedures prescribed. On all these counts, the respondents urge this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 20. We have carefully perused the materials on record having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties concerned. On making such an exercise, we have found that the dispute, in this proceeding, revolves around the following points: (A) Whether there was any justification in issuance of Notifications, under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, dispensing with issuance of Notice under Section 5A of the LA Act on the ground that project, in question, needs to be executed urgently. (B) Whether there is any public interest involved in constructing railway line between Agartala and Sabroom. (B) Whether there is any public interest involved in constructing railway line between Agartala and Sabroom. (C) Whether change in the alignment, in question, was mala fide and for extraneous reasons. 21. We would consider, now, the queries, which have been raised above, one by one. However, before answering the above queries, we need to know how important the project, in question, is as far as the State of Tripura is concerned. We have already pointed out that the project, under consideration, envisages to connect Agartala, the capital State of Tripura, with Sabroom, situated in the extreme southern part of this State, the stretch between these two places being 150 Km approximately. No one can deny the fact that railway is one of the most effective modes of transportation of men and materials. 22. It is a common knowledge that an area, which has adequate and ample railway network, witnesses faster growth and rapid progress than the areas, which do not have such infrastructure. This is because of the fact that Railway plays perfect host to many developmental activities, which, in turn, make it easier for the stake holders, in different fields, to consolidate their respective positions and move faster on the graph of growth and development, which, ultimately, contributes greatly in changing the economy of a State or of a particular area. 23. But then, what we have stated is true in the context of normal geographical/topographical situation. Railways may have still different role to play for the place(s) like North East Region, which could not make much progress due to its geographical/topographical terrains and constraints, because most of the areas, in the North Eastern States, are either crisscrossed by small and big rivers or occupied by mountains and hills of different sizes and shapes, where surface network is far from satisfactory. 24. Being so, role of Railways will be much more crucial, much more significant for States in North-Eastern Region, in general, and the State of Tripura, in particular, where geographical/topographical conditions, as stated above, are fundamentally different from the rest of the country. In such a scenario, Railways may hold the key for faster development not only for the State of Tripura, but for other surrounding States as well. POINT NO. 1. 25. In such a scenario, Railways may hold the key for faster development not only for the State of Tripura, but for other surrounding States as well. POINT NO. 1. 25. Importance of railway vis-a-vis State of Tripura, in particular, and North Eastern States, in general, having been indicated above, we find it necessary to know if there was any justification, on the part of the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, in invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the LA Act, dispensing with the issuance of Notification under Section 5A of the LA Act, to the persons, whose lands are likely to be acquired for the purpose aforesaid. 26. We have already found that the project, under consideration, is a time bound one. Consequently, the project needs to be executed within the stipulated period. More importantly, the Central Govt. has already placed, at the disposal of the concerned Department, necessary funds required for execution of the project aforesaid. Non-execution of such a project, in time, would not only expose the same to a plethora of complexities and difficulties, but it may also delay the commissioning of the project by years if not by decades. This is because of the fact that once the concerned Department misses the outer limit fixed or execution of the project, the find, placed at the disposal of concerned Department, may not remain, and, in fact, not likely to remain, sufficient to complete the work outside the stipulated period. In that event, the Department, entrusted to execute the work, would have to approach, once again, appropriate authorities seeking more funds to execute the work beyond the stipulated period. 27. However, owing to complicacies inherent in such a process, the release of the fund, required to execute the project, in question, beyond the stipulated time, may take months; rather years, which, in turn, may throw the project to uncertainties of different dimensions and magnitudes. The only way out to avoid such a grim and harsh scenario is to get the work done within the time already stipulated and one of the safest, but the surest ways of accomplishing such aim was to acquire the land required for construction of railway track on emergency basis. The only way out to avoid such a grim and harsh scenario is to get the work done within the time already stipulated and one of the safest, but the surest ways of accomplishing such aim was to acquire the land required for construction of railway track on emergency basis. Viewed from this angle, one could not find fault with the respondent No. 2 in invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act to meet the urgency of the emergency situation. 28. Some other facts, which emerge from the narration, made in the counter affidavit, have, again, thrown their weight behind the above conclusion of ours. We have already found that the project, in question, involves work of enormous volume, which is to be executed in different phases and the acquisition of land is only one of the numerous phases involved in the project, in question. 29. It is a common knowledge that the process of acquisition of land is a cumbersome one and, in most of the cases, it takes years to come to conclude acquisition proceedings. Therefore, unless the regular process, involved in the acquisition of land, was skipped and unless the emergency clause, as embodied in Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the LA Act was invoked, one cannot hope to execute and conclude the project within time. These all stand testimony to the fact that there was no infirmity whatsoever in respondent No. 2 invoking the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act; more so, when enough time is not left for completion of the project, in question. 30. The track record of the project, under consideration, throws its weight not behind the petitioners, but behind the respondents. It has also been noticed, during the course of above discussion, that the survey of land, required for the project under consideration, was completed as back as in the year 2007. In spite of survey of the land having been completed as early as 2007, till date even the acquisition process could not be completed. 31. It has also been noticed, during the course of above discussion, that the survey of land, required for the project under consideration, was completed as back as in the year 2007. In spite of survey of the land having been completed as early as 2007, till date even the acquisition process could not be completed. 31. Thus, it is, now, well apparent that if the matter, relating to acquisition of land, required for the construction of proposed railway line, is left to the uncertainties inherent in the procedures prescribed in the LA Act, more particularly, to the provisions of Section 5A of the LA Act, then, the process of acquisition of land may not, perhaps, be completed during the remaining period as regards completion of project, leave alone completing the entire project within time. 32. In the backdrop of the circumstances discussed above, one has no option, but to conclude, and we do conclude, that invoking of the emergency clause, as embodied in the LA Act, dispensing with the issuance of the notices, under Section 5A of the LA Act, is wholly indispensable in the present situation and has been rightly done so by the respondents. 33. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred us to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Gupta Vs. State of U.P. (supra), Darshan Lal Nagpak Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) and Dhanu Taluka Environment Protection Group & Anr. Vs. Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. & Anr. (supra). However, the law, laid down in these cases furthers not the cause of the petitioners, but of the respondents instead. Being so, we have no hesitation in answering the query No. 1 above in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. POINT NO. 2. 34. Here, we are required to see if change of route from original alignment to the alignment, at Serial No. 3 in Annexure-R/I, was done in public interest. The learned counsel for petitioners has contended that the original alignment was changed to present one, i.e. alignment at Serial No. 3 in Annexure R/I, without their being any public interest involved and that the number of persons, who would be displaced, and the volume of properties, both public and private, which would be affected by alignment, at Serial No. 3 aforesaid, clearly go against the case, which the respondents have set up. 35. 35. In order to reinforce such an argument, it has been contended that the construction of railway track, on the original alignment, would have caused displacement of only 126 houses belonging to 279 families. Moreover, the volume of public properties, likely to be affected by such alignment, was significantly smaller. However, if it is decided to construct railway track on the new alignment at Serial No. 3 of the Annexure-R/I, as many as 197 houses belonging to 449 families would be affected. 36. Coupled with the above, according to the petitioners, one High School, one Water Treatment Plan, one Market, one Public Office and four Temples would get affected in case the new railway track is constructed on the new alignment. 37. What may, now, be noted is that the particulars of the number of the 197 houses, belonging to 449 families, have not been furnished by the petitioners. Their claim, therefore, made, in this regard, remains unfounded and without any supporting material. 38. We have already found that people, who live in Bishalgarh/Brajapur-Mouja and who got affected by original alignment, raised serious objections to the construction of railway track alongside the original one and it forced the respondents to reconsider their decision to construct the railway track on line drawn by "RITES". 39. On considering the grievances of those people, the respondents/authorities concerned found such grievances to be genuine and justified and, as such, in consultation with all concerned, they drew up as many as four alternative alignments for connecting the places between 10 Km and 16 Km in Agartala-Sabroom railway track. 40. The relative advantages and disadvantages of those alignments were also documented in Annexure-R/I and the same were discussed in a meeting held on 20.03.2010 and it was found that the alignment, shown at Serial No. 3 of Annexure-R/I, was the most suitable route for construction of railway track between 10 Km and 16 Km. The chart, showing comparative advantages and disadvantages of the four alternative alignment in Annexure-R/I, makes this position more than clear. 41. The chart, showing comparative advantages and disadvantages of the four alternative alignment in Annexure-R/I, makes this position more than clear. 41. With regard to the above, and contrary to what have been submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, perusal of Annexure-R/I shows that whereas the original alignment would cause displacement of as many as 430 households, apart from affecting two graveyards, two markets, each containing eight shops, one steel furniture manufacturing factory as well as one transformer, the new alignment would displace only 249 households. Equally important, the volume of public properties, affected by the new alignment, is also found to be considerably smaller. 42. The comparative chart, at Annexure-R/I, therefore, unmistakably demonstrates that sufferance of the people, both at public and individual level, in terms of loss of properties and inconveniences, caused by such alignment, would be far too less if the proposed railway track is constructed on the alignment at Serial No. 3 of the Annexure aforesaid. This also speaks loud and clear that change of alignment was made entirely in public interest and not for extraneous reasons as has been alleged by the petitioners. 43. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also found fault with change of alignment for yet another reason. It has been contended, in this regard, that the original alignment was drawn up by a body as famous as RITES, whereas the new alignment was made by Railway authorities, which do not have the expertise and experience of RITES. This is, according to Mr. Bhowmik, indicative of the fact that the change of alignment was made not in public interest at all, but at the behest of some people, who had huge stake in changing the alignment to the new one. 44. It is true that RITES has expertise and experience in drawing up new railway projects, but this does not mean that the other technical personnel of respondent No. 1 do not have required knowledge and expertise to draw up alignment for new railway projects. What is important to note here is that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the personnel, who drew up the new alignments, are, in any way, inferior to the personnel from RITES. 45. In the above view of the matter, it cannot be said that a new railway link cannot be approved of unless it is drawn up by the RITES. 45. In the above view of the matter, it cannot be said that a new railway link cannot be approved of unless it is drawn up by the RITES. Quite contrary to it, all the materials, available on record, only serve to show that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the original alignment, prepared by RITES, was required to be abandoned not only on technical reason, but for sufferance it would cause to the public and the Government. Thus, in our considered view, no adverse presumption can be entertained for choosing the new alignment, in question, merely because the new alignment has not been prepared and drawn by RITES. 46. The learned counsel for the petitioners has attacked the new alignment for one more reason. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitioners form a considerable and sizeable segment of people, affected by the alignment No. 3 (new one), and, as such, they took upon themselves to resist the attempt, made by respondents to construct new railway track on such alignment. This contention was also hotly disputed by the respondents. 47. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, a large number of the people, affected by new alignment, has already approached the concerned authority and availed of the compensation granted to them. In fact, the number of such people, who have already received compensation, is around 80% of the total population affected by new alignments. This factual scenario was not disputed at the time of hearing. Thus, when 80% of the total population, affected by the new alignment, have agreed and accepted the compensation, it would be highly dangerous to interfere with the process of the project, in question, at the behest of the remaining 20% of the total population, at this stage. 48. In fact, on perusal of the official record, we have found sufficient force in the above contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. Since a large number of affected people from Bishalgarh/Brajapur-Mouja have already accepted the compensation, granted to them, the claim of the present writ petitioners, that a large number of the people would be made to suffer if the new alignment was allowed to be acted upon, cannot be accepted. In fact, some of the writ petitioners have also accepted compensation, which were offered to them. POINT NO. 3 49. In fact, some of the writ petitioners have also accepted compensation, which were offered to them. POINT NO. 3 49. The petitioners have also contended that change of route from original alignment to the new one was made not in good faith, but with mala fide intention. To bolster such a claim, the petitioners have stated, in paragraph No. 5, that the change of alignment was done at the behest of some political parties and local leaders, who had pressurized the respondents to change the alignment from the original one to the new one. 50. The allegation, so made in paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition, is found to be without any supporting material. In our considered view, such allegation cannot be acted upon unless the persons, against whom such allegations are made, were heard, but they cannot be heard as they have not been made parties. The allegations, thus, made in para-5, have remained as mere allegations. Not to speak of bringing materials on record, in support of what the petitioners have contended as already indicated hereinbefore, those, against whom the allegations have been levelled, were not even impleaded as parties. The petitioners, thus, want this Court to condemn some persons without giving them any opportunity of being heard. Such an approach would defeat the principles of natural justice. 51. The petitioners have also contended that decision to change the railway track from original alignment to the new one was taken quite surreptitiously and in a clandestine way without taking the local populace into confidence. This is, according to the petitioners, one more example of the change of alignment being done with ulterior motive. This contention was also intensely disputed by the respondents. According to the respondents, all concerned were consulted before taking the decision to change the route from the original alignment to the new one. 52. With regard to the above, respondents have referred us to the paragraph 8 of their affidavit-in-opposition. On perusal of the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition, we have found that people from cross section of the society, their elected representatives as well as officers/officials from different Departments were consulted before taking the impugned decision to abandon the original alignment. 53. 52. With regard to the above, respondents have referred us to the paragraph 8 of their affidavit-in-opposition. On perusal of the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-opposition, we have found that people from cross section of the society, their elected representatives as well as officers/officials from different Departments were consulted before taking the impugned decision to abandon the original alignment. 53. Though the petitioners have filed an affidavit-in-reply, what cannot be ignored and must not be ignored by this Court is that the averments, made by the respondents in para-8 of their affidavit-in-opposition, have gone almost unrebutted. In the face of such unrebutted statements made by the respondents, we have no hesitation in concluding that the allegations, made by the petitioners, that the original alignment was changed in a hush-hush manner is devoid of truth. 54. In so far as the petitioners' grievance that earlier notices were sent under. Sections 9(3) and 9(4) of the LA Act, but no such notice has been issued this time, suffice it to point out, in this regard, that we have already pointed out above that urgency of the situation, involved in completing the project within time and the overriding public interest demanded acquisition of the land, in question, on emergency basis. We, therefore, find no reasonable ground to hold the decision of the State illegal, unfair, bias or unjust. 55. What emerges from the above discussion is that the respondents have taken into account all such factors, which were relevant and ought to have been taken into consideration and have kept eschewed from their consideration any such factor, which ought not to have been taken into account being irrelevant. This apart, we find that public interest in completing the project within time outweighs the interest of the writ petitioners and, in such circumstances, the decision of the respondents ought not be interfered with, when the same could not be shown to have been taken mala fide or with ulterior motive. 56. We have already found that to bolster up their case, the petitioners have referred us to the decisions, rendered in Tika Ram (supra), Nand Kishore Gupta (supra), Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra) and Dhan Taluk Environment Protection Group (supra). 57. The factual matrix of the case, in Nand Kishore (supra), were that in 2001, the Government of U.P. took a decision for construction of Yamuna Expressway from Greater Noida to Agra. 57. The factual matrix of the case, in Nand Kishore (supra), were that in 2001, the Government of U.P. took a decision for construction of Yamuna Expressway from Greater Noida to Agra. Soon thereafter, Notifications, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, were issued and Taj Expressway Industrial Development Authority was constituted to execute the project. 58. By global tender, bids were, in Nand Kishore (supra), invited for implementation of the said project as well as for building of five townships on built, operate and transfer (BOT) basis. Successful bidder was to get patches of land, specified along the highway, on cost of acquisition. Moreover, the bidder was to get 25 million square meters of land along the express way, on lease, for 90 years at acquisition cost in order to develop the same for commercial amusement, industrial, institutional and residential purposes. 59. Furthermore, the bidder, in Nand Kishore (supra), was authorised to levy, collect and retain toll from public, who use the Expressway during a period of 36 years, The bid, offered by a private company, was accepted. However, it led to public outcry for which a PIL was also filed before the High Court. A commission of enquiry was appointed to look into the matter. In due course, the commission of enquiry cleared the project. The PIL was, thereafter, dismissed. 60. On 20.2.2009, Government issued, in Nand Kishore (supra), Notification, under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and under Section 17(4) of the Act, for acquisition of certain land for public purposes, namely, for construction of interchange under Yamuna Expressway Project. On 15.6.2009, Government issued another Notification, dated 15.6.2009, under Section 6 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, dispensing the enquiry required to be held under Section 5A of the Act. These facts led to filing of two sets of writ petitions by the land owners challenging the said Notifications. Those writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court by two separate judgments. Thus, the matter, ultimately, came before the Supreme Court. These facts led to filing of two sets of writ petitions by the land owners challenging the said Notifications. Those writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court by two separate judgments. Thus, the matter, ultimately, came before the Supreme Court. On hearing the parties concerned, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concluding, amongst other things, that the satisfaction of executive, as regards dispensing with the requirements of Section 5A of the Act, is not to be interfered with (a) unless it is shown that such notice suffers from mala fide or (b) unless it is shown that such satisfaction was based on insufficient materials. 61. Learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing in the present proceeding, has, now, arduously contended that in our case, the decision to dispense with enquiry, under Section 5A of the Act, was taken without there being sufficient materials on record. Equally important, according to Mr. Bhowmik, learned Senior counsel, such a decision was taken on considerations, which were mala fide and, hence, he urges this Court to quash the Notifications under challenge. 62. We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions. We have already found that both the allegations aforesaid are without any merit inasmuch as there is enough material to show that the decision to dispense with enquiry, under Section 5A of the Act, was taken on the basis of sufficient materials and, hence, the impugned decision, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be actuated by mala fide. Being so, the decision, in the case of Nanda Kishore Gupta (supra), or, for that matter, the decision, rendered in Tika Ram (supra), are found to be inapplicable to the present case. 63. In so far as the decision, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), is concerned, we have found that between January, 2006, and July, 2008, officers of Delhi Transco. Ltd (for short, DTL), Delhi Development Authority (in short, DDA) and the Government of NCT, Delhi, exchanged communications seeking land for establishment of electric Sub-station at village Mandoli. DTL stressed the needs for early settlement of land in its favour for implementation of the project; whereas the officers of DDA repeatedly expressed their inability to allot the particular site pointing out that the same was reserved for other purposes. 64. DTL stressed the needs for early settlement of land in its favour for implementation of the project; whereas the officers of DDA repeatedly expressed their inability to allot the particular site pointing out that the same was reserved for other purposes. 64. On 2.7.2008, Secretary, Power, Government of NCT, New Delhi, and DLT requested the DDA to change the land intimating that due to paucity of sufficient land, DLT had proposed to establish a GIS indoor type sub-station, which could be accommodated in a space of about 200 x 25 meters as against the original requirements of 1700 x 500 meter. A month later, Joint Secretary, Power, sent a communication, dated 9.9.2008, to the Principal Secretary to the Land and Building Department requesting him to initiate the process for acquisition of the identified land by invoking provisions of Section 17 of the Act. It was also mentioned therein that the said project was required to be completed before the commencement of the Common Wealth Games in October, 2010. In due course, Lt. Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi, issued Notification, dated 13.10.2009, under Section 4(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, for acquisition of 80 Bigha 15 Biswa of land. The declaration, under Section 6(1) was published on 9.11.2009. By another Notification published on the same day, the Land Acquisition Collector (North East Delhi) was authorised to take possession of the land on expiry of fifteen days from the date of publication of the Notification. 65. When the land owners, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), learnt about the proposed acquisition of their land, they made a representation before the concerned Member of Legislative Assembly stating that only 29.6 of Bighas of land were required for the installation of Sub-Station, referred to above, and that barren land, available in that area, could be utilised for such a purpose. However, the said representation did not evoke the desired result for which the writ petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Notifications, dated 13.10.2009 and 9.11.2009. The main plank of their arguments was that more than 4 years had been spent in making correspondence by the concerned departments and that too, even on some trifle matters. However, the said representation did not evoke the desired result for which the writ petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Notifications, dated 13.10.2009 and 9.11.2009. The main plank of their arguments was that more than 4 years had been spent in making correspondence by the concerned departments and that too, even on some trifle matters. Such delay in identifying the land and in initiating the process for acquisition of land speak in volume that there was no urgency for invoking the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. The Government of NCT and DLT filed separate counter affidavits resisting the submissions so made by writ petitioners. 66. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), by reaching a conclusion that though Common Wealth Games were over by that time, yet the urgency for acquisition of land continued since the very purpose of the project was to provide adequate power supply to the residents of the city as there was wide gap between the demand and supply. Being dissatisfied with the judgment, rendered by High Court, the writ petitioners, as appellants, took the matter to the Supreme Court. 67. The Supreme Court, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), allowed the appeal on holding that there were no material on record to justify the decision to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The Supreme Court also noticed that concerned authorities had been dilly dallying the matter pertaining to identification of land and acquisition thereof for a period more than four years, which was, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, not a testimony of there being any justification for dispensing with the enquiry aforesaid. 68. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the present case, has pointed out that in the case at hand, too, the process for acquisition of land had been initiated as back as in the year 2007 and Notifications, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A, were published between 30th May, 2011, and 10th August, 2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A, is squarely applicable to the case at hand. 69. Once again, such an argument holds no water. It is true that the project, under consideration, had been initiated way back in 2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision, in Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A, is squarely applicable to the case at hand. 69. Once again, such an argument holds no water. It is true that the project, under consideration, had been initiated way back in 2007. There is no dispute that the Notifications were published between 30th May and 10th of August, 2011. But then, one must not overlook the fact that in our case, the respondents authorities, on their way of identifying and acquiring the land, required for the project, in question, had encountered enormous difficulties, which hardly admit of any solution. Therefore, a considerable time was spent in locating the land and initiating the process for acquisition of such land required for the purpose aforesaid. Being so, facts and circumstances of the present case are not same as in the case of Darshan Lal Nagpak (supra), which the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, has referred to. 70. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred us to the decision of the Supreme Court, in Dhanu Taluka Environment Protection Group & Anr. (supra). In the said case, two writ petitioners objected to the clearance, given by the State of Maharashtra and Union of India, of a proposal of Bombay Sub-Urban Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. (in short, BSES) for construction of thermal power plant over an area of 800 hectors in Dhanua, Maharashtra. The writ petitions were resisted by the respondents therein and after considering the same, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. 71. The objectors, thereafter, took the matter, in Dhanu Taluka Environment Protection Group & Anr. (supra), to the Supreme Court. While deliberating on the matter, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with some modifications holding, inter alia, that the Court, exercising the power of judicial review, was to examine whether the concerned authority, in taking a decision, under challenge, has taken into account all the relevant aspects involved therein or whether the decision was taken on extraneous considerations or by ignoring the material considerations. It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, in our case, that the decision to change the alignment of railway track and the decision to dispense with the enquiry aforesaid were taken on extraneous considerations. 72. It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, in our case, that the decision to change the alignment of railway track and the decision to dispense with the enquiry aforesaid were taken on extraneous considerations. 72. The allegations, so made by the petitioners, have already been found by us not to be true. In our case, we have already found that the decision to change the original alignment in favour of a new one or, for that matter, the decision to dispense with the enquiry, under Section 5A of the Act, was taken after due deliberation taking into account all the relevant aspects. The decision, in question, could not be shown to have been taken on extraneous considerations by taking into account some factors, which were irrelevant. Our forgoing discussion has made this position more than clear and the same need no further reiteration here. 73. In the face of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we cannot persuade ourselves to come to the conclusion that the decision to change the alignment from the original one to the new one or the decision to dispense with the enquiry, under Section 5A of the Act, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. 74. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find and hold that this writ petition is wholly without merit and cannot be allowed. The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed