The Court has held that land not complying with the requirement under Section 17(3A)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act, 1894’) is clearly illegal and in violation of the statutory provision, automatically violating the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A of the Constitution. The grievance raised was that neither the initial requirement of tendering and paying 80% of the estimated compensation contemplated under sub­section(3A) to Section 17 of Act, 1894 was complied; nor was the requirement of Section 11A of the Act, 1894 to pass the award within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6of Act, 1894 complied. In that view writ petition was filed. The acquiring authority and/or beneficiary cannot derive benefit of noncompliance of requirement of Section 17(3A) and take benefit of Section 11A of Act, 1894. The benefit of the provision is for the land loser. In Satendra Prasad Jain also this Court was of the opinion that it was not open for the acquiring authority or the beneficiary to take benefit of Section 11A and Section 17(3A) which is intended to benefit the land owner to ensure that award be made within time. The provision contained in Section 11A of Act,1894 shall be applicable to cases in which the acquiring authority has not complied with the requirement of sub­section (3A) to Section 17 of Act, 1894 by tendering and paying eighty per centum of the estimated compensation before taking possession since possession in such cases cannot be considered to be taken in accordance with law and the vesting is not absolute. If the requirement is complied and possession is taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there is need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of Section 11A of Act,1894 will not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case is to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. In the instant case though Section 11A of Act,1894 has become applicable, in the changed circumstance , the Court deemed it proper to mould the relief instead of holding the acquisition to have lapsed.