Urgency acquisition under land acquisition law divided on compensation timing, vesting, and Article 300A constraints.

The commentary examines whether Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to urgency acquisitions under Section 17, whether Section 17(3A) requires mandatory pre-possession payment of 80% compensation, and how Article 300A constrains expropriatory interpretation. One opinion treated Section 17(3A) as directory, holding that non-payment does not undo vesting once possession has passed to the State and that relief is unavailable after delay and third-party development. The dissent treated Section 17(3A) as mandatory and non-compliance as rendering urgent acquisition invalid. The bench was equally divided, so no binding ratio emerged and the matter required reference to a larger bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (ii) whether Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory or directory and whether non-compliance invalidates the acquisition; (iii) whether relief could be granted after possession had vested and third-party development had taken place; (iv) the bearing of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the strict construction of expropriatory legislation.

Concurring Opinion: Swatanter Kumar, J. held that Section 11A does not apply to urgency acquisitions under Section 17, that Section 17(3A) is directive though compliance is required, and that non-payment does not cause lapse or revesting once possession has vested in the State. The opinion further held that the statute must be construed strictly but within its scheme, and that equitable relief was unavailable in view of delay and completed development. The appeal was dismissed with costs and directions regarding interest, compensation guidelines, and disciplinary action.

Dissenting Opinion: Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. held that Section 17(3A) is mandatory, payment of 80% compensation before possession is a condition precedent, and non-compliance renders emergency acquisition illegal. The opinion also held that the right to property under Article 300A requires a just, fair and reasonable construction, and that Section 11A's rationale cannot be extended to save unlawful urgent acquisition without statutory compliance. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief and costs.

Final Conclusion: The bench was divided on the core questions of law, and the matter required reference to a larger bench for resolution of the conflicting views.

Ratio Decidendi: No single binding ratio emerges because the opinions were equally divided on the decisive legal issues.

---