JUDGMENT

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.- 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 Section 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 Section 11A of the Act? B. Whether the provisions of Section 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 Section 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 Section 5A of the Act, the Court is entitled to construe the emergenc