* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 1. W.P.(C) 2835/2000 Smt. Rakhi Rughwani & Ors. ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 2. W.P.(C) 6689/1998 Raj Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. O.N. Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shradha Bhargav, Adv. versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate with Ms.Charul Sarin, Advocate for DDA W I T H CW 2835/2000 1 of 82 3. W.P.(C) 3938/1996 Prahlad Vihar Resident Assn. ... Petitioner through Mr.Amit Goel and Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 4. W.P.(C) 4148/1996 Gayatri Devi Aggarwal ...Petitioner through None versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Ms.Sangeeta Chandra with Mr.Deepak Khadaria, Adv. for DDA W I T H 5. W.P.(C) 4701/1996 Bhagwan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners through None versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA CW 2835/2000 2 of 82 W I T H 6. W.P.(C) 1183/1997 Prem Lata & Ors. ...Petitioners through None versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 7. W.P.(C) 1406/1997 Khandalwal Papers & Anr. ...Petitioners through None versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 8. W.P.(C) 1426/1998 Sukbir Singh .....Petitioner through Ms.Madhu Tevatia & Ms.Sidhi Arora, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA CW 2835/2000 3 of 82 W I T H 9. W.P.(C) 1649/1998 Sunita Aggarwal & Ors ....Petitioners through None versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 10. W.P.(C) 6710/1998 Harpreet Singh & Anr. ..Petitioners through Mr. O.N. Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shradha Bhargav, Adv. versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Ms.Sangeeta Chandra with Mr.Deepak Khadaria, Adv. for DDA W I T H 11. W.P.(C) 1638/2000 Sunil Goel & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA CW 2835/2000 4 of 82 W I T H 12. W.P.(C) 1742/2000 Jagdish Baherwani & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 13. W.P.(C) 2040/2000 Prahlad Vihar Residents Welfare ...Petitioner through Mr.Amit Goel and Mr.V.K.Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 14. W.P.(C) 2199/2000 Krishan Kumar Gupta & Ors. ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Adv. versus Lt.Governor & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA CW 2835/2000 5 of 82 W I T H 15. W.P.(C) 2326/2000 Bhupinder Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 16. W.P.(C) 2327/2000 S.K.Garg & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 17. W.P.(C) 2532/2000 Darshan Singh & Ors. .....Petitioners through Mr.Devinder Chaudhary, Adv. versus Lt.Governor & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA CW 2835/2000 6 of 82 W I T H 18. W.P.(C) 2570/2000 Mohinder Pal ...Petitioner through Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate versus Union of India ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 19. W.P.(C) 2904/2000 Deep Vihar Welfare Society ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. S.Palo, Advocates for the Applicant versus Lt.Governor of Delhi ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 20. W.P.(C) 2917/2000 Prem Adhar Memorial Charitable Trust ..Petitioner through Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. S.Palo, Advs versus Govt. of Delhi & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L CW 2835/2000 7 of 82 & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 21. W.P.(C) 3075/2000 Krishan Colony Welfare Association ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 22. W.P.(C) 3082/2000 Krishna Kaushik. ...Petitioner through None versus Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H CW 2835/2000 8 of 82 23. W.P.(C) 3410/2000 S.Trilok Singh ..... Petitioner through Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. S.Palo, Advocates versus Union of India ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA W I T H 24. W.P.(C) 4375/2000 Anil Kumar Thapar & Ors. ..... Petitioners through Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. S.Palo, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 25. W.P.(C) 5276/2000 Ram Kala & Ors. ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA CW 2835/2000 9 of 82 W I T H 26. W.P.(C) 5821/2000 Ram Dhari Jindal Memorial Trust. ...Petitioner through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates Mr. S.K. Rout with Mr. S.Palo, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 27. W.P.(C) 7181/2000 Brahm Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners through None versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H CW 2835/2000 10 of 82 28. W.P.(C) 8058/2002 Chandra Kanta C. Meshram ...Petitioner through None versus Lt.Governor of Delhi & Anr. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 29. W.P.(C) 1622/2003 Ravi Gupta & Ors. ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate with Ms.Charul Sarin, Advocate for DDA W I T H 30. W.P.(C) 96-97/2004 Sandeep Rana & Anr. ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates versus CW 2835/2000 11 of 82 Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 31. W.P.(C) 4095-96/2004 Ashok Kumar & Ors. ..... Petitioners through Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajeev Kumar Ghawana and Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for DDA W I T H 32. W.P.(C) 371/2006 Priyavart ..Petitioner through Mr.V.S.Chauhan with Mr. N. Chaudhary, Advocates for LR of the Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay CW 2835/2000 12 of 82 Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate with Ms.Charul Sarin, Advocate for DDA W I T H 33. W.P.(C) 5528/2001 Velaxan Kumar ..Petitioner through Mr. Sanjay Mann, Advocate. versus Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents through Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Advocate with Mr.Ramesh Ray and Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocates for the LAC & L & B Department & GNCTD Judgment Reserved on : May 3, 2007 Judgment Delivered on : July 9, 2007 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.P. SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest? J U D G M E N T VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. In these petitions a challenge has been laid to the acquisition of large tracts of land in Delhi stated to be required CW 2835/2000 13 of 82 for Rohini Residential Scheme. The Principal Secretary (PWD/L&B), in her Note dated 15.10.1999 had requested the Hon. Lt. Governor to approve issuance of a Notification under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') . An order, also invoking the urgency clause was forwarded for the Lt. Governor's signature. On 27th October, 1999 the Lt. Governor , Delhi passed an order in these words - “I have gone through the records and requirements of the Delhi Development Authority and the draft notification prepared by LAC. I am fully satisfied that the land measuring 2673-07 Bigha in village Shahbad, Daulatpur, 2975-09 Bigha in village Pehladpur Banger, 1178-11 Bigha in village Khera Kalan, 345-02 Bigha in village Khera Khurd, 1223-06 Bigha in village Pansali, is urgently required for a valid purpose, namely for Rohini Residential Scheme under Planned Development of Delhi. In view of the urgency of the scheme, I order that notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be issued immediately”. The Notification in question inter alia states that - “The Lt. Governor, Delhi is satisfied also that provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act are applicable to this land and is further pleased under sub-section (4) of the said Section to direct that all the CW 2835/2000 14 of 82 provisions of Section 5(A) shall not apply”. Accordingly, the following Notifications/Declarations were also issued from time to time: 1. Notification u/s 4 No. F10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394 dated 27.10.1999. Declaration u/s 6 No.F10(29)/96/L&B/LA/20 dated 3.4.2000. 2. Notification u/s 4 & 17 No. F(II)(17)/91-L&B/LA/6518 dated 28.4.1995. Declaration u/s 6 No.F(II)(17)/91-L&B/LA/7085 dated 26.4.1996 3.Notification u/s 4 & 17 No.F19(29)/96-L&B/LA/UOI/III/14-7- 2000. 4.Notification u/s 4 & 17No.F11(76)/2000/L&B/LA/dated 25-1- 2002. Declaration u/s 6 dated 3-12-2002. All these Notifications/Declarations are sought to be quashed in these writ petitions. 2. The contention of the Petitioners is that the Lt. Governor had not specifically authorised invocation of Section 17 (4) of the stridently Land Acquisition Act and that this is all the more significant since the draft of the Notification placed before him adverts to Section 17(4). According to the Petitioners, the CW 2835/2000 15 of 82 only inference that can be drawn is that the Lt. Governor did not approve of dispensing with the Petitioners valuable rights to object to the acquisition. The further contention is that since the Petitioners have not been permitted to avail of their rights to file objections under Section 5A and have not been given an opportunity of being heard the entire acquisition should be struck down. It has also been argued on behalf of the Petitioners that even assuming that Section 17(4) need not in terms have to be mentioned by the Lt. Governor while granting his approval to the Scheme and that reference only to Section 17(1) would suffice, the Lt. Governor has not properly exercised his mind in approving the waiver and withdrawal of the Petitioners valuable right under Section 5A of the Act. In other words it is their stance that resort to the emergency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act were unwarranted and unjustified in the facts of the present case. It will be relevant to record at the threshold that acquisition proceedings stand completed in respect of an overwhelming portion (stated by Mr. Poddar to be as much as 80 per cent) of the subject land, i.e. its possession has been taken over by the Government which has tendered compensation to the erstwhile owners. CW 2835/2000 16 of 82 INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 17 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 3. The interplay between the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act with which we are presently concerned have been dealt with in minute detail in a plethora of precedents. The following passage from Nandeshwar Prasad -vs- The State of U.P., [1964] 3 SCR 425 (followed one year later in Sarju Prasad Sinha -vs- The State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1763) perspicuously encapsulates the law on the subject, holding that the State Government ought not to have dispensed with adherence to Section 5A in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act: The proceedings for acquisition start with a preliminary notification under s. 4. By that notification the Government notifies that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. On that notification certain consequences follow and authority is conferred on an officer either generally or specially by Government and on his servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality, to dig or bore into the sub-soil, to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose, to set out the boundaries CW 2835/2000 17 of 82 of the land proposed, to be taken, and so on. Then s. 5-A provides that any person interested in any land which has been notified in s. 4, may within thirty days of the issue of the notification object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality as the case may be. Every such objection shall be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector has to give the objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and after making further inquiry if any, as he thinks fit, the Collector has to submit the case for the decision of the Government together with the record of the proceedings held by him and the report containing his recommendations on the objections. The decision of the Government on the objections is final. Then comes the notification under s. 6, which provides that when the appropriate government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under s. 5- A that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect and published in the official gazette. After such a declaration has been made under s. 6, the Collector has to take order for acquisition of land. It is marked out, measured and planned under s. 8 if necessary and notice is given under s. 9 to persons interested. The Collector then holds inquiry under s. 11 and makes an award. After the award is made the Collector has got the power to take possession of the land under s. 16 and the land then vests absolutely in CW 2835/2000 18 of 82 the Government free from all encumbrances. It will be clear from this scheme that compliance with the provisions of s. 5-A is necessary before a notification can be issued under s. 6. As soon as the preliminary notification is issued under s. 4, the officer authorised by Government may enter upon the land to survey it and to do all other necessary acts to ascertain whether the land is adapted for the purpose for which it is to be acquired, and this action, if taken, will give sufficient notice to those interested to object. If objections are made the Collector will consider those objections and make his recommendation thereon in his report to Government. If no objections are made the Collector will report that no objection has been made and the Government then proceeds to issue a notification under s. 6. In either case however, the Collector has got to make a report with his recommendations on the objections if they are filed or inform the Government that there are no objections filed in pursuance of the notification under s. 4 and it is thereafter that the Government is empowered under s. 6 to issue a notification. This, as we have said, is the usual procedure to be followed before the notification under s. 6 is issued. To this usual procedure there is however an exception under s. 17, and that is why in s. 6 we find the words "if any" in the clause "after considering the report, if CW 2835/2000 19 of 82 any, made under s. 5A". When action is taken under s. 17(4), it is not necessary to follow the procedure in s. 5-A and a notification under s. 6 can be issued without a report from the Collector under s. 5-A. ...... It will be seen that s. 17(1) gives power to the Government to direct the Collector, though no award has been made under s. 11, to take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purpose and such land thereupon vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. If action is taken under s. 17(1), taking possession and vesting which are provided in s. 16 after the award under s. 11 are accelerated and can take place fifteen days after the publication of the notice under s. 9. Then comes s. 17(4) which provides that in case of any land to which the provisions of sub-s. (1) are applicable, the Government may direct that the provisions of s. 5-A shall not apply and if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under s. 6 in respect of the land at any time after the publication of the notification under s. 4(1). It will be seen that it is not necessary even where the Government makes a direction under s. 17(1) that it should also make a direction under s. 17(4). If the Government makes a direction only under s. 17(1) the procedure under s. 5-A would still have to be followed before a CW 2835/2000 20 of 82 notification under s. 6 is issued, though after that procedure has been followed and a notification under s. 6 is issued the Collector gets the power to take possession of the land after the notice under s. 9 without waiting for the award and on such taking possession the land shall vest absolutely in Government free from all encumbrances. It is only when the Government also makes a declaration under s. 17(4) that it becomes unnecessary to take action under s. 5-A and make a report thereunder. It may be that generally where an order is made under s. 17(1), an order under s. 17(4) is also passed; but in law it is not necessary that this should be so. 4. Thirty five years later, their Lordships had garnered support from Nandeshwar Prasad which was applied in Union of India -vs- Mukesh Hans, (2004) 8 SCC 14, decided on 17-9- 2004 without reference to Krishan Lal Arneja (infra). It was emphasised that there must be an application of mind by the appropriate Government to the facts of the case with special reference to the necessity of dispensing with the invaluable opportunity of showing cause and being heard against the acquisition consequent upon a Section 4 Notification. It should be noted that prior to the amendment of the statute in 1923, since the right to file Objections to the proposed expropriation of land was non existent, there was no reason whatsoever to refer to the CW 2835/2000 21 of 82 dismissal or disposal of Section 5A Objections. It is advisable, if not essential, to keep the annals of the statute in mind while interpreting its sundry sections. Their Lordships had upheld the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and had reiterated the law in these words: 29. A careful perusal of the above Section shows that Sub-section (1) of Section 17 contemplates taking possession of the land in the case of an urgency without making an award but after the publication of Section 9(1) notice and after the expiration of 15 days of publication of Section 9(1) notice. Therefore, it