Urgency acquisition vesting under land acquisition law is not defeated by delay in award or unpaid pre-possession compensation.

Where possession is validly taken under the urgency powers in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely in the Government and Section 11-A cannot be used to treat the acquisition as having lapsed. Non-payment of the eighty per cent estimated compensation required by Section 17(3-A) is a breach of statutory duty, but it does not undo vesting or invalidate possession already taken. Section 5 is confined to damage from entry and preliminary acts, so it does not support compensation for continued deprivation after acquisition. The appellants were entitled to a mandamus directing making and publication of the award.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when possession has been taken under Section 17(1) and the land has vested in the Government; (ii) whether non-payment of eighty per cent of the estimated compensation under Section 17(3-A) prevents vesting or renders the possession illegal; (iii) whether compensation could be awarded under Section 5 for the continued deprivation of possession.

Issue (i): Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when possession has been taken under Section 17(1) and the land has vested in the Government.

Analysis: Section 11-A requires an award within two years of the declaration, failing which the acquisition proceedings lapse. That consequence applies where the land has not yet vested in the Government and the acquisition remains pending. Section 17(1), however, operates in cases of urgency and authorises possession before the award. Once possession is taken under that provision, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from encumbrances. In such a situation, there is no room for applying Section 11-A so as to revive the owner's title or undo the statutory vesting.

Conclusion: Section 11-A does not apply to acquisitions under Section 17(1) after possession has been taken and vesting has occurred.

Issue (ii): Whether non-payment of eighty per cent of the estimated compensation under Section 17(3-A) prevents vesting or renders the possession illegal.

Analysis: Section 17(3-A) obliges the Collector to tender eighty per cent of the estimated compensation before taking possession. The omission to comply with that obligation is a breach of the statutory duty, but it does not negative the effect of possession already taken under Section 17(1) or prevent vesting in the Government. The remedy lies in determining and paying compensation in accordance with the Act, not in treating the acquisition as having failed or the possession as ineffective.

Conclusion: Non-payment of the amount required by Section 17(3-A) does not undo vesting or invalidate the possession taken under Section 17(1).

Issue (iii): Whether compensation could be awarded under Section 5 for the continued deprivation of possession.

Analysis: Section 5 is confined to compensation for damage caused in entering upon land and doing acts necessary to ascertain whether it is suitable for the public purpose. It is not a provision for compensating an owner whose land has been acquired and possessed under the special urgency powers. The claim for compensation in this context must be worked out under the acquisition provisions themselves.

Conclusion: Compensation under Section 5 was not available on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The acquisition did not lapse merely because the award had not been made within the ordinary period, since the land had already vested in the Government under the urgency provisions. The appellants were entitled to a mandamus directing the making and publication of an award.

Ratio Decidendi: Where possession is validly taken under the urgency provisions and the land vests in the Government, Section 11-A cannot be invoked to cause lapse of the acquisition, and breaches relating to pre-possession compensation do not undo that vesting.

---