As per the case facts, the appeal had a history of divergent opinions between two judges regarding land acquisition proceedings. One judge found taking possession without complying with Section 17(3A) ... of the Land Acquisition Act illegal and a violation of Article 300A, directing an award based on a later market value. The other judge disagreed, stating Section 11A did not apply to Section 17 acquisitions and default in Section 17(3A) did not vitiate proceedings, but misconstrued payment details. The reason for the appeal to the Supreme Court was to resolve the conflict arising from these divergent opinions between the two judges. The question arose whether non-compliance with Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invalidates the acquisition proceedings, and how compensation should be determined given the circumstances. Finally, due to the divergent opinions and lack of a formulated question, the three-judge bench heard the matter de-novo, considering the acquisition to have lapsed. They directed the respondents to determine the market value based on a later date for valuation, while statutory benefits including interest would be calculated from the original Section 4 notification date.