The provisions of S.11A do not apply to emergency acquisitions under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, and non-compliance with S.17(3A) does not invalidate the proceedings.

1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are simple and fall within a narrow compass. However, they raise questions which are of public importance and legal significance. Thus, it will be appropriate for us to state the questions of law at the very threshold:
A. When the Government, in exercise of its emergency powers under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the `Act') acquires lands, which have since vested in the State, can such an acquisition proceeding lapse and consequently the land can be transferred to the owners / persons interested in the event of default by the State, in complying with the provisions of S.11A of the Act?
B. Whether the provisions of S.17(3A) of the Act are mandatory or directory? In either event, would non - compliance with this Section have the effect of invalidating or vitiating the entire acquisition proceedings, even where the land has vested in the State in terms of S.17(1) of the Act?
C. Whether with the invoking of the emergency provisions which have the effect of dispensing with the provision of hearing under S.5A of the Act, the Court is entitled to construe the emergency provisions strictly, being drastic provisions in an exproprietory law and consider the safeguards inbuilt in S.17(3A) against such drastic provisions as conditions precedent and mandatory for a valid exercise of emergency provisions.
D. Whether having regard to the principle of reasonableness being a basic component of fundamental rights under the Constitution, this Court has to construe the provisions of the said Act, a pre - constitutional law in consonance with reason and justice - the fundamental tenets of Art.14 and thus arrive at a balanced interpretation of the interest of the State as against the rights of citizens or land owners.
FACTS:

2. The appellant No.1 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is alleged to be the owner of the land sought to be acquired by the respondents. The appellant's land, admeasuring about 2-06-1/3-0 Bighas situated in Village Haldauni, Tehsil and Pargana Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar which is abadi land, was sought to be acquired by the appropriate Government under a notification dated 17th April, 2002 issued under S.4(1) read with S.17(1) and S.17(4) of the Act. This land was acquired for the planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 121 (NOIDA). The notification also stated that the provisions of S.5A of the Act shall not apply. In pursuance to the said notification, a declaration under S.6 of the Act was published on 22nd August, 2002, declaring the area which was required by the Government. It also stated that after expiry of 15 days from the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of S.9 of the Act, possession of the acquired land shall be taken. The appellants have alleged that they did not receive any notice under S.9(1) of the Act but possession of the land was nevertheless taken on 4th February, 2003. According to the appellants, even after a lapse of more than three and a half years after the declaration under S.6 of the Act, no award had been made and published.

3. The appellants further alleged that, despite inordinate delay, they were neither paid 80 per cent of the estimated compensation in terms of S.17(3A) of the Act at the time of taking of possession, nor had the Collector passed an award within two years of making the declaration under S.17(1), as required by S.11A of the Act. It was the case of the appellants that this has the effect of vitiating the ent