Key Points: - The Court held that there was no justification for delay in completion of proceedings after the 1974 Aflatoon judgment; delays beyond a reasonable time (about two years after the declaration) were unreasonable (!) (!) (!) . - It was held that beyond two years, additional compensation at 12% per annum should be awarded to cultivators, rather than quashing the proceedings, to balance public interest and individual injury (!) (!) . - The 1984 amendments introduced time limits (Section 11-A) for making awards, with lapse of proceedings if not completed within two years from the declaration; provisos do not validate pre-existing inaction but set new deadlines (!) (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that compensation must reflect market value as of the date of notification under Section 4, not the date of award, to avoid undue pegging; advancement of the notification date may be used to protect just compensation in specific cases (!) (!) . - The Court recognised the need for expeditious conclusion of acquisition and payment of compensation after Section 6 declarations, and that unreasonably delayed proceedings undermine constitutional and statutory mandates (!) (!) .

What is the appropriate remedy where land acquisition proceedings have been delayed beyond reasonable time and compensation pegged to earlier notification dates?

What is the effect of introducing time-limits for awards and declarations (Sections 11-A and 6) on previously pending acquisitions and potential compensation?

What is the proper judicial relief when delays in land acquisition have caused injury to cultivators, and should courts quash proceedings or award additional compensation?