(1.) The petitioners in W.P. No. 3495 of 1982 are the appellants in this Writ Appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondent herein. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands. In the land acquisition proceedings, urgency powers were invoked and the enquiry under S.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was dispensed with. Before the learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition two contentions were urged and they are as follows :
(2.) Mr. G. Ravi Shanker, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would urge in this writ appeal the very same two points taken before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. He would contend that though the question of urgency is for the Government to decide and it will not ordinarily be justiciable, yet nothing is exposed in the case by the respondents to justify the invocation of the urgency powers and in such a contingency this Court must interfere because valuable rights to participate in an enquiry under S. 5-A of the Act and to demonstrate against acquiring the lands of the petitioners have been done away with. When we go through the papers placed before us, we are persuaded to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A decision on the question of invoking urgency is only that of the Government. That decision is not ordinarily justiciable. But, that decision must be taken on proper material and in an objective manner. That power is not to be invoked mechanically. When this Court is called upon to see as to whether the invoking of the urgency power has been properly exercised, it has necessarily to examine whether the decision was based on acceptable material and has not been done in an arbitrary manner without reference to the factual details. The enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Act, enables the owner of the land, sought to be acquired, to make his objections and there has to be, normally, consideration of the said objections, before a decision is taken; and the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act is made. By invoking urgency powers, this normal process is dispensed with. Naturally, it becomes the obligation and duty of the Court, when it is called upon to examine the propriety of involving of urgency powers, to find out as to whether such invoking of urgency powers has been properly done and not arbitrarily without reference to existence of urgency.
(3.) The materials were pressed into service before the learned single Judge to impress upon him with regard to the justification for invoking the urgency powers. One is the report of the Tahsildar dated 26-7-1980, the contents of which, as per extract found in the order of the learned single Judge, run as follows :-