Compensation paid under Section 40 urgency provisions remains provisional until the final award.

The State acquired land for the Indo-Nepal Border Road under the urgency provisions of Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

The appellant’s land was treated as residential for the initial compensation payment. A later committee enquiry classified it as agricultural, and the authorities sought repayment of the alleged excess compensation before a final award under Section 37 had been prepared and approved.

The appellant’s writ petition challenging that action was dismissed by the Single Judge, relying on the decision in *Girish Kedia v. State of Bihar & Ors.*

The appellant appealed; the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

Whether the authorities could verify the land’s classification and continue determining compensation before preparation and approval of the final award under Section 37 of the 2013 Act

Whether the Single Judge’s refusal to interfere with that process warranted appellate intervention, having regard to the appellant’s statutory remedy under Section 64

Under Section 40(3) of the 2013 Act, the Collector must tender 80 per cent of the compensation as estimated before taking possession in an urgency acquisition; that estimated payment is not, by itself, the final determination of compensation.

Section 40(4) permits the appropriate Government to direct that provisions of Chapters II to VI shall not apply in such cases.

The final award is contemplated by Section 37, and Section 64 provides a reference to the Authority for a person interested who has not accepted the award, including an objection to the compensation amount.

Executive power and instructions may supplement the statutory scheme but cannot contravene it; verification of land classification before a final award is not contrary to that scheme.

As applied in *Girish Kedia*, recovery of any differential compensation must follow the finalisation of the award and be pursued in accordance with law.

Because the acquisition proceeded under Section 40 and no final award had been prepared and approved, the compensation previously paid was an estimate rather than a concluded statutory determination.

The authorities could therefore verify the land’s nature and valuation while determining the final compensation; the earlier description of the land as residential did not bar that inquiry.

The appellant could not yet invoke Section 64, which operates after an award, but would be entitled to use that remedy if aggrieved by the award ultimately made.

The Court also held that the LARRA order concerning another landholder did not determine the classification of the appellant’s land absent established factual identity.

Any recovery, however, must occur only after finalisation of the award and strictly in accordance with law.

The Single Judge’s observations and directions remained in force, including that any differential amount could be recovered only after the award was finalised and in accordance with law; the appellant remained at liberty to seek a Section 64 reference if aggrieved by the award.