1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are decided by this common order.

2. In village Mandafia Sanwaliyaji, there is a temple of Lord Krishna. The management of the temple and its properties is under the Board constituted under Shri Sanwaliyaji Temple Act, 1992. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act (hereinafter) was issued on 10-7-1996 and was published in the Raj asthan Gazette dated 27-7-1996 for acquisition of lands and buildings for extension of temple Shri Sanwaliyaji and for construction of temple premises. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the newspapers Pratah Kal published from Udaipur, dated 4-9-1996, Lalkar published from Chittorgarh dated 5-9-1996 and Rajasthan Kiran published from Nimbaheda dated 12-9-1996. A declaration under. Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was published in Rajashtan Gazette dated 18-9-1996, in the newspapers Jan Nayak dated 21-9-1996 and Rajasthan Patrika dated 9-10-1996. Notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued to some of the owners of the properties under acquisition.

3. In view of Section 4 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, three modes of publications are prescribed by the statute, namely, (a) publication in the Official Gazette; (b) publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, one of which dailies must be in the regional language; and, lastly (c) publication of the substance of notification at a convenient place in the locality. Unless all the aforesaid modes of publication are resorted to, the notification would be clearly invalid and inoperative, as under the statute the last of dates of such publications shall be the date of publication of the notification. The publication of the notification by all the three modes is a mandatory requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act.

4. The notification under Section 4(1) is challenged by the petitioners on two counts: (i) that the notification under Section 4(1) has not been published as required in the newspapers having circulation in the locality; and (ii) that the publication of the substance of the notification at a convenient place in the locality has not been made and, therefore there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the acquisition proceedings be quashed.

5. The petitioners have filed the letters of the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sanwaliyaji Mandafiya; Headmaster, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Mandafia; the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, Mandafia; the Senior Medical Officer, Mandafia; the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Mandafia; to the effect that the newspapers in which the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is not subscribed by them whereas the respondents filed a certificate of Public Relation Officer, Chittorgarh that the daily newspapers Pratah Kal, Jan Nayak and Lalkar have good circulation in Chittorgarh district and besides subscribed by Govt. departments in different places in the district, they are subscribed by Public Libraries and are seen at public places and have a good number of readers. The object of the notification under Section 4 is to give public notice, that it is proposed to acquire the land mentioned in the notification and that anyone who deals in that land subsequent to the notification would do so at his own risk. Preliminary notification under Section 4 is only a proposal to acquire land. A notification under Section 4 achieves a two-fold object. First, it is a public announcement by the appropriate Govt. and a public notice by the Collector in respect of the land being needed or likely to be needed by the Govt. for a public purpose and secondly, it authorises the departmental officers, or officers of a local authority or company, as the case may be, to survey and do other acts by entering the land. Thus, the words used “two newspapers circulating in the locality” has to be read in that context. Newspaper need not be subscribed by each and every person whose land is under acquisition. If a newspaper has a sufficient number of subscribers or readers in the locality, it would be said that it has a circulation within the locality for the purpose of Section 4(1) of the Act. It would be a different thing if the number of subscribers or readers is no meagre, which can be said to be none, then it could not be taken to be a newspaper having circulation in the locality within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Act. The circulation of the newspaper for the purpose of Section 4(1) does not mean that each and every individual whose land has been acquired, should be the subscriber or that the State has to prove that newspaper publishing notice under Section 4 was read by person whose land was sought to be acquired. Had it been the intention of the legislature, then it would have been provided in the Act that notice would be issued, of proposed acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act, to each of the land owner whose land is needed or likely to be needed for public purpose and would be subject to acquisition. Unless positive proof has been brought on record by the petitioners that the newspaper in which the notification has been published, has no circulation at all in the locality or has meagre circulation, which can be said to be no circulation, the newspaper published from the district or tehsil wherefrom lands are sought to be acquired, shall be presumed to have circulation in the locality. There is a letter of the Public Relation Officer that the newspapers in which the notification was published, have sufficient circulation in the locality. That being so, the contention of the petitioners is without any substance and is rejected.

6. It is alleged by the petitioners in the petitions that to the best of the petitioners' knowledge, the public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has not been given. The respondents have produced a document, and it is obvious therefrom that the notice was affixed on the notice board of Tehsildar; notice board of Gram Panchayat, Mandafia; Public Choraha of Mandafia; notice board of Sanwaliya Trust and notice board of Patwar Bhawan, Mandafia. The report of such affixture before the witnesses was submitted by one Satya Narain. From the aforesaid document, there cannot be any amount of doubt that the notices were affixed at the convenient places in the locality in compliance of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act.

7. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the mind has not been applied before applying the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. There was no such urgency for issuing the notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The construction of the temple or the extension of temple premises, could not be a reason for applying the emergency provision.

8. Under Section 5A of the Act, any person interested is entitled to be heard after the notification under Section 4 is published for acquisition of the land. Section 17(4) provides an exception to this rule. Where Section 17(1) and (2) apply, it may be delared that the procedure required under Section 5A shall not apply. It may direct a declaration to be made under Section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the date of publication of Section 4(1) of the notification. The purpose of Section 17(4) of the Act is, obviously, confined to situations in which an enquiry under Section 5A will not serve any useful purpose or for some overriding reason, it should be dispensed with. The mind of the officer has to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5A of the Act should be given go bye and it is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an enquiry under Section 5A which has to be considered as has been held by apex Court in a case reported in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183. The power under Section 17(4) would not be exercised as matter of routine and the opinion of the State Govt. as to emergency can be quashed if it is demonstrated that it was not formed at all or that it was based on facts which were not relevant or non-existent. If that is the situation, it can legitimately be inferred that the mind has not been applied at all. But if the purpose for which the land is being acquired is urgent and the very purpose of the acquisition of the land will be frustruated, if the land is not urgently acquired, then the said purpose is very much relevant for forming an opinion to exercise the power under Section 17(4) of the Act. It is a matter of common knowledge that the period of enquiry contemplated under Section 5 of the Act requires sometime and the urgency contemplated is not only the period of 30 days which is required to be given for submission of objection but also the period of enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The question is whether the urgency clause applied by the State while publishing the declaration under Section 6 is justified in the circumstances of the case. The State has produced a file for perusal of the Court and it appears that the reason, for application of the emergency clause is that there is a large number of devotees about ten thousands every day coming for the darshan but as the temple premises is small, the devotees face many difficulties in taking darshan. The huge number of devotees have to stay in que outside the temple road which hinders the traffic and there is a situation created of a traffic jam and as a result thereof, the devotees and the villagers face difficulties and, therefore, the project is being prepared for construction of temple and extension of temple premises. The purpose for which the acquisition is made is to facilitate the devotees for taking darshan and to save the unnecessary harassment of the residents created by large number of devotees coming to the temple for darshan. The reason of resorting to emegency provision is a everyday occurrence and, therefore, it cannot be said that the application of the emergency clause is not justified or a colourable exercise of powers. The Court can only enquire if those materials justifying dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A existed, not the sufficiency of the material. Application of emergency provision to remove difficulties faced by large number of devotees and to avoid public inconvenience is relevant consideration and, therefore, it cannot be said that formation of the opinion by the authority on that material is not germane for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act.

9. For the reasons stated above, the petitions are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.