(1.) THIS is a Special Civil Application challenging a notification issued by the Commissioner, Ahmeda-bad Division; under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying for acquisition final Plots 160 and 163 of the Town Planning Scheme Ahmedabad No. 3 (Ellis Bridge) from the area of the village Shekhpur-Kanpur comprised in the Ahmedabad City. The petitioner owned both these final plots, but he disposes of final plot No. 160 by donating it to a Public Trust on the 5th May 1959. Both these final plots of land, according to the petitioner, are situate within the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and are valuable pieces of land in the Town Planning Scheme. They have an excellent situation commanding the meeting of four different roads and are on the bank of river Sabarrnati. The public purpose for which they have been notified tor acquisition is the construction of the office building of the Executive Engineer of the Ahmedabad Irrigation Division.
(2.) BY clause 3 of the said notification the Commissioner has directed under Sub-section (4) of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act that as the acquisition of the lands notified is urgently necessary, the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act shall not apply in respect of the said lands.
(3.) THE petitioner's challenge is directed against this clause of the notification. Several grounds are set up in the petition challenging this clause, but the only ground which is pressed before us is that the lands in the present case are not such as would come within the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, and it is not, therefore, competent for the Commissioner to apply the provisions ot Section 17 (4) and direct that the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act shall be dropped in the present acquisition. It is contended by the petitioner that the notification in so far as it directs that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply to the present acquisition proceedings deprives the petitioner of his valuable right to object to the acquisition of the land, of being heard in the enquiry under section 5-A and of satisfying the Acquiring Authority that for a variety of reasons which he can adduce before the said authority, the proposed acquisition should be dropped. The petitioner's argument in support of the contention which he has raised in the present application shortly stated is as follows: Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act applies only in the case of a land to which the provisions of Section 17 (1) or Section 17 (2) are applicable. We are not concerned with Section 17 (2) which deals with cases where possession of land is immediately required by a Railway Administration under circumstances as mentioned in the said Sub-section and for purposes as specified therein. Section 17 (1), according to the petitioner applies to waste or arable lands Only in urgent cases of acquisition. In other words, the petitioner has argued that in order that Section 17 (1) may apply, two conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be urgency of acquisition and secondly the land proposed to be acquired must be either waste or arable land. It is only when these two conditions are satisfied that the acquiring authority is competent to direct under Section 17 (4) that the provisions of Section 5-A may be dropped in the case of the proposed acquisition of the land. The petitioner says that his land is neither waste nor arable. He has urged that the land is situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad, has an excellent situation commanding the meeting of four public roads and is on the bank of the river Sabarniati. It abuts on a main 80 feet Road leading to Wadaj Gandhi Ashram and is situated just opposite the Income-tax Office and All India Radio House. According to the petitioner, it is an excellent and valuable building site and the land adjoining it has been only recently sold at a price of Rs. 24. 75 np. per square yard. The petitioner has further stated that he is desirous of building a bungalow on the site and has for that purpose already submitted plans for construction for sanction and approval to the appropriate authorities. The petitioner has contended that the land proposed to be acquired would by no stretch of imagination be said to be waste or arable and, therefore, one of the conditions necessary for enabling the acquiring authority to drop the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is not satisfied in the present case. As to the other condition, namely that there must be urgency of acquisition, the petitioner has urged in the petition that there is no such urgency because the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ahmedabad, for the construction of whose building the land is proposed to be acquired, has already got his office in another building near Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. It is, however, fairly conceded by Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the existence and extent of urgency at the stage of issuing a direction under Section 17 (4) would be a matter for the subjective determination of the acquiring authority and will, therefore, not raise a justiciable issue. He has, accordingly conceded that it will not be possible for him to agitate in the present Special Civil Application that the condition as to urgency of acquisition also has not been satisfied in the present case.