1.0 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTtSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ WRIT PETITION No. 5771 OF 2005 PETITIONERS ^-<, 1. Kunj Bihari, Aged about 28 years, S/o Shri Prem Singh Gond, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, P.S. Tamnar, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Kanhaiya Lal. son of Panaku Ghasiya, aged about 22 years, reskient of vitlage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, P.8. Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Motiram son of Sadram Kenwat, aged about 76 years resident ofvjjlage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, P.S. Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Yasoda, son of Shri Hirderam aged about 30 years, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, P.S. Tamnar.Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Bulau,agedabout72yeare,sonofShri Neelu, resjdentofvitlage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 6. Gudul, aged about 59 years, son of Shri Samaru, r^identofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 7. Ghasiya, aged about 55 years, son of Shri Ballu Uraon, residentofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 8. Motiram, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Laharu, resident ofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 9. Ram Sai, aged about 40 years, son ofBulau Uraon, resjdentofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 10. Harihar Prasad, son of Muhayee,aged about 50 years, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura. Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 11. Tulasi Baj, aged about 30 years, daughter of Chandan, resident of village —2L.- %C) Kunjemura Kunjemura, P.S. Tamnar. Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 12. Shyamlal, son of Runga, aged about 36 years, resident ofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, P.S. Tamnarjah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 13. Parmeshwar, son of Budu. aged about 42 years, resident ofvitlage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Rajgarh (C.G.) 14 Chhabil, aged about 61 years, son of Shri Jhagaru Uraon, resident ofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 15 Umed, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Liladh, resident ofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 16. Sukul son of ChaNan, aged about 62 years, resident ofvillage Kunjemura Kunjemura. Tah. Gharghora, P.S. Tamnar,Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 17. Manohar Singh Sidar, aged about 72 years, son of Shri Janakram Gond, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, P.S. Tamnar Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 18. Narsingh, aged about 62 years, son of Shri Janak Gond, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Rajgarh (C.G.) 19. Jagarmati Bhagat, W/o Ikchharam, aged about 50 years, Caste - Uraon, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 20. Jairam Dhoba, S/o Dokri, Aged about 50 years, Caste - Dhoba, resident of vjllage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Rajgarh (C.G.) 21. Shekharjal S/o Shantilal, aged about 20 years, caste - uraon, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 22. Basti Ram S/o Chaitan. aged about 62 years, Caste - Uraon, resklent of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 23. Trilochan S/o Kiritram, Aged about 50 years, Caste - Kewat, resktent of village Kunj'emura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) -rb- 24. Bihanuram S/o Daulatram, aged about 62 years, Caste - Uraon, resident of wllage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, DJstt. Raigarh (C.G.) 25. Raghuveer S/o Madhusudan. aged about 45 years, Caste Sodhi, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 26. Mansai S/o Gujru, Aged about 60 years Caste - Uraon, resident ofvitlage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah.Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 27. Bhuneshwar S/o Dadhu, aged about 36 years, Caste - Kewat, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 28. Jaipal S/o Mangal, aged about -34 yre. Caste - Uraon, resident of village Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Rajgarh (C.G.) 29. Santuram S/o Tejram, Aged about -40 yrs, Caste - Gond, resident ofviltage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 30. Ravindra S/o Ramnath, Aged about 28 yrs. Caste - Kewat, resident ofvitlage Kunjemura Kunjemura, Tah. Gharghora, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalysm Singh Bhawan. Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Govemment <rf Chhattisgarh, DepartmentofCommerce And Industry, DX.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, Disfrict - Ralgarh (C.G.) 4. The Sub DMsional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5. Jindal Power Limited. Through : Its Managing Director, Raigarh (C.G.) Present: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for ttie petttioners. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents 1 to 4/State. Mr. B.D.Guru, tearned counsel assisting Shri Prashant Mishra, iearned Sr. Advocate for respondent No.5. a^ -^- ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12th December 2005) In this writ petition, the action of the State in invoking urgerrcy clause under SecBon 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'ttie Act') is questioned. It was contended by the teamed counsel for the petitioners that the State Govemment by jnvoking urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act has sought to acquire the subject land for ©xpansionof 5th respondent-Company for generating etectric power. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners quite sfrenuousty that there was absolutely no need or urgency to Jnvoke urgency dause. 1 have carefutly perused the averments made in the pefrtion. It is not the case of the petitioners that ttie State-aLriaiorities have invoked urgency clause incorporated in Section 17 (4) oftheAct wrttti a malafide intention or for any extraneous consjderations. If ttiat is so. the law as settted by the Apex Court would govern ttie situation. The Supreme Court in Union offndia Vs. Praveen Gupta (AfR 1997 SC 170) has opined that the decision of urgency js an administrative decision and a matter of subjective satjsfaction, and such a satisfection should not be interfered with by the Courts Jightty. The Court went to ttie exlent of saying tfrat the acquiring authorities neod not gh^e any reasons in support of ite sub|ectw© satisfaction. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Cfiamdl! Singh Vs. Stafe of U.P. (1696) 2 SCC 849 has opined that when the Government invokes urgencyclause under Section 17 (4) of the Act, the opinion of the Government is entitled to great weight and its opinion should not be upset unless it is shown that the decision is vitiated by mQlafide or colourable exercise of power. Be that as it may, if the 5 respondent-lndustry has requjsitioned the State to acquire the subject land ^x ~s~- for its sxpansion activities so as to generate power, a part of which is required to be made available to the public at large, it cannot be said that there is no element of urgency tn the aequisitlon. In ttiat view of the matter, 1 do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is awordingly djsmissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ^,^