Validating statute and urgency acquisition upheld; compensation default after possession did not undo the land acquisition.

A validating statute may retrospectively cure the defect that led to earlier invalidation if it removes the legal basis of that decision, and the amended proviso was upheld as valid for that purpose. Non-payment or short payment of estimated compensation before possession did not invalidate the acquisition once possession had been taken and the land had vested; any default gave rise only to monetary consequences, not lapse of proceedings. The Article 14 challenge and objection to invocation of urgency also failed because the urgency power was applied for planned housing development, with no established arbitrariness or mala fide classification. The acquisition notifications and validating legislation were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 and the proviso inserted in Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were constitutionally valid and whether they validly removed the defect noticed in the earlier decision on simultaneous publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 6; (ii) Whether non-payment or short payment of 80% of the estimated compensation under Section 17(3A) invalidated the acquisition or caused the proceedings to lapse; (iii) Whether the challenge based on Article 14 and alleged lack of urgency in invoking Section 17 could succeed.

Issue (i): Whether the Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 and the proviso inserted in Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were constitutionally valid and whether they validly removed the defect noticed in the earlier decision on simultaneous publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 6.

Analysis: The validating enactment was held to be a permissible exercise of legislative power because it did not merely nullify the earlier judicial decision but retrospectively removed the defect on which that decision rested. The proviso inserted in Section 17(4), read with Section 3 of the validating Act and the statement of objects and reasons, was construed purposively so that the declaration under Section 6 could be treated as valid even where it preceded or was simultaneous with publication of the Section 4 notification. The Court also held that the earlier decisions upholding the same validating measure had settled the issue and that the legislation was within constitutional competence.

Conclusion: The validating Act and the amended proviso were upheld as valid, and the challenge to the acquisition on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether non-payment or short payment of 80% of the estimated compensation under Section 17(3A) invalidated the acquisition or caused the proceedings to lapse.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 17(3A) is intended to secure payment of estimated compensation before possession, but non-compliance does not nullify the acquisition once possession has in fact been taken and the land has vested. The remedy for such default lies elsewhere, including payment of interest or other monetary consequences, but not in invalidating completed acquisition proceedings. The Court relied on earlier authority treating post-possession challenges on this ground as insufficient to undo the acquisition.

Conclusion: Non-payment or delayed payment of compensation did not vitiate the acquisition or cause it to lapse.

Issue (iii): Whether the challenge based on Article 14 and alleged lack of urgency in invoking Section 17 could succeed.

Analysis: The Court found that the urgency power was exercised for planned housing development, that the land had already been taken, developed, and allotted, and that there was no established mala fide or arbitrary classification. The distinction drawn between different housing schemes did not amount to invidious discrimination, and the statutory scheme provided intelligible guidelines for invocation of urgency and dispensation of the Section 5A inquiry. The Court therefore rejected the plea that the provisions were arbitrary or violative of Article 14.

Conclusion: The Article 14 challenge and the challenge to the invocation of urgency were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition notifications and validating legislation were sustained, the writ-based challenges failed, and all appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A validating statute is constitutionally permissible if it retrospectively removes the defect that formed the basis of the earlier invalidation, and non-compliance with the pre-possession compensation requirement does not by itself undo an acquisition after possession has been taken and the land has vested.

---