each State. It is often presented and is a quite commonly observed and seen practice that, while the economic value of land attracts people, its cultural value is not recognised many a times. The petitioner herein, while giving utmost importance to the economic value of the property, has refused to accept its cultural value. Unlike other projects, the said project cannot be implemented in an alternate site, as this project is location-specific and has to be conserved in-situ. He further submits that in A.Natesa Asari v State of Madras AIR 11954 Mad 481; (1953) 2 MLJ 684; R.D.Chand v State of A.P. AIR 1963 AP 383, the Hon'ble Court has ruled that what all is required under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act is that the Government must be satisfied that there is such urgency as is contemplated by Section 17 (1) [ or section 17 (2) ]. If they are so satisfied, they are entitled to pass an order under Section 17 (4) suspending the application of Section 5A. Whether urgency exists or not is a matter solely for the determination of the Government and it is not a matter of judicial review. Similarly, in Jose Joaquim Sebastino Rodrigues v Union of India AIR 1967 Goa 167, the Hon'ble Court has ordered that the question of urgency is primarily for the Government to decide and is not to be weighed in the scales. The decision of the Government as to whether urgency exists cannot be questioned in any Court, provided the Government applies its mind and acts in good faith. In the instant case, the Government with utmost good faith of protecting the historically important site of “Arikanmedu” has invoked urgency provisions available under Section 17(4) after careful application of mind.
