On 7 March 2011, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court quashed the acquisition of fertile agricultural land for a district jail at Shahjahanpur, holding that the emergency power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be invoked to dispense with the landowner's right to object under Section 5A absent a real and demonstrable urgency. A digest of the holding, the reasoning on urgency and alternative sites, and where the decision sits in the urgency-clause line.
On 31 August 2016, a two-judge Bench of Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Arun Mishra quashed the acquisition of roughly 1,000 acres at Singur in Hooghly, West Bengal, for Tata Motors' Small Car (Nano) project. The two judges wrote separately and split on 'public purpose' — Gopala Gowda J held the acquisition was really for a company and had bypassed the mandatory Part VII procedure, while Arun Mishra J held that attracting industry and employment IS a valid public purpose — but concurred that the Section 5A enquiry was not genuinely conducted, and on that shared ground the acquisition was struck down. A digest of the two opinions, the shared ratio, and the relief.
On 15 April 2011, a two-judge bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly held that the power under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the Section 5A objection enquiry is an extraordinary power — available only where the public purpose cannot brook even a few weeks' delay. Acquisition for planned industrial and residential development near Greater Noida, which by its nature takes years, could not justify denying landowners their Section 5A hearing. Once urgency is challenged, the burden falls on the State to justify the dispensation.