Acquisition sustained despite invalid urgency invocation, with compensation recalculated under the 2013 Act.

The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”) on 28 August 2001, invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A (referred to in the judgment as Section 57-A).

A declaration under Section 6 followed on 30 August 2001 for acquiring land in and around Gobindpura and Gobindpuri, Yamuna Nagar, for construction of roads for Sector 18 and Sector 18 Part, Jagadhri.

The petitioners owned land covered by the acquisition and claimed that residential constructions existed on portions of it.

Interim orders protecting possession were granted in 2001 and 2002, and the award was passed on 27 March 2002.

The writ petitions were initially allowed on 23 May 2014 on the ground of alleged lapse under the 2013 Act, with liberty to the State to reacquire the land in accordance with law.

At the remand stage, the petitioners agreed to accept compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), calculated with reference to the date of the present judgment, while the State sought delivery of possession.

Whether the State had formed the requisite opinion and applied its mind before invoking Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act to dispense with the inquiry and hearing under Section 5-A?

Whether the urgency relied upon by the State was of such a real and exceptional nature that the petitioners could lawfully be deprived of their statutory right to object to the acquisition?

What relief should be granted where the invocation of the urgency provisions was legally defective, but quashing the acquisition would adversely affect a substantially constructed public road?

The Court applied Sections 5-A, 17(1) and 17(4) of the 1894 Act.

Section 5-A confers a valuable right upon interested persons to object to the proposed acquisition, while Section 17 is an exceptional power permitting possession before the award in cases of urgency; Section 17(4) separately requires the appropriate Government to apply its mind and consciously direct that the Section 5-A inquiry be dispensed with.

Relying on *Essco Fabs Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana*, *Union of India v. Mukesh Hans* and *Prabhawati v. State of Bihar*, the Court held that the mere existence of urgency does not automatically justify dispensing with Section 5-A; the Government must record material demonstrating both urgency and the necessity of eliminating the inquiry.

For moulding relief, the Court relied on *Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar*, which recognises that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and permits the Court to preserve an acquisition while granting enhanced compensation where quashing would cause unjust consequences or prejudice public interest.

The Court found no material in the State’s written statement, status report, or original record showing that the appropriate Government had separately considered whether the Section 5-A inquiry should be dispensed with.

The record merely asserted the existence of urgency and the public purpose of constructing a road; it did not demonstrate a conscious decision that even the limited delay caused by hearing objections would frustrate the project.

The State’s conduct further weakened its claim of exceptional urgency: possession was not taken before the interim orders, the award was passed approximately seven months after the Section 6 declaration, and no application for early hearing or vacation of the stay was made for several years.

The Court therefore held that the statutory safeguard under Section 5-A had been improperly excluded.

However, because the road had substantially been constructed and connected to National Highway 73, releasing the petitioners’ land would create practical difficulties and prejudice public interest.

Balancing the illegality in the acquisition process against the public consequences of quashing the notifications, the Court adopted the remedial approach recognised in *Noida Industrial Development Authority* and directed payment of compensation under the 2013 Act rather than annulment of the acquisition.

Nevertheless, instead of quashing the acquisition, it upheld the notifications under Sections 4 read with 17 and Section 6, and disposed of both writ petitions.

Compensation be assessed under the 2013 Act.

The date of the judgment be treated as the relevant date for determining market value.

The prevailing Collector’s rate be used for valuation of the land.

The structures be separately assessed.

100% solatium and 12% interest under Section 30 of the 2013 Act be paid from the date of judgment until payment.

Assessment be completed within two months and payment made within the following month.

The petitioners hand over possession upon payment of compensation.

The previously assessed amounts of ₹3,71,727 and ₹30,55,406 were not to be deducted from the fresh compensation, as the petitioners had declined to withdraw them.