https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171603 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. en-us Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171603 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171603