https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187184 Urgency acquisition under Section 17 vested the land absolutely in the Government on possession, so Section 11-A did not apply and the proceedings did not lapse for want of an award within two years. The proceedings dated 31.7.1984 were treated as an award in substance because they recorded the material elements of an award and any defect in form or signature was only procedural. A writ seeking implementation of earlier directions was maintainable notwithstanding other proceedings, because it was directed to enforcement of prior binding orders rather than a barred parallel remedy. en-us Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Oct 2016 10:12:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187184 Urgency acquisition under Section 17 vested the land absolutely in the Government on possession, so Section 11-A did not apply and the proceedings did not lapse for want of an award within two years. The proceedings dated 31.7.1984 were treated as an award in substance because they recorded the material elements of an award and any defect in form or signature was only procedural. A writ seeking implementation of earlier directions was maintainable notwithstanding other proceedings, because it was directed to enforcement of prior binding orders rather than a barred parallel remedy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187184