In Brief
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (which provides for lapsing of acquisition if award is not passed within two years) applies to acquisitions under Section 17 (emergency provisions). However, if 80% of estimated compensation is tendered and paid before taking possession as mandated by Section 17(3A), the land vests absolutely and Section 11A's lapsing consequence does not apply. The Court overruled the broad interpretation of Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and held that the benefit of lapsing provisions belongs only to land losers, not the acquiring authority. Non-compliance with Section 17(3A) renders possession illegal unless the land loser consents. The Court directed that in the instant case, compensation be determined with the acquisition date as the reference for valuation while statutory benefits be calculated from the original notification date.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.