SMT. SEEMA vs MITHILESH KUMAR

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of notifications issued under Sections 4, 6, and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning land acquisition for public purposes in Delhi. The Court held that the phrase 'likely to be needed' in the notification indicated a lack of urgency, thus invalidating the invocation of Section 17(4) which dispenses with the right to file objections under Section 5-A. Consequently, the Court ruled that the acquisition proceedings were flawed and required adherence to the statutory provisions, particularly regarding the need for urgency and public interest.