JUDGMENT :

M. M. Sathaye, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Advocate T.J. Pandian waives service for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Central Railway). Mr. Patel, the learned AGP waives service for Respondent No.3 (State). Heard finally by consent.

2. This group of petitions raise the same issue for consideration and therefore are being heard together. It is a common ground before us that all the Petitioners are similarly placed and for the purpose of convenience, the facts of the lead writ petition No. 8071 of 2021 are being referred to.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a declaration that the Award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) about the Petitioner’s land Gat No. 61/2/A admeasuring 34.4 Guntha situated at Village Kaladhonda, Tal. Uran, Dist. Raigad, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act’) stands lapsed. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to drop all the further proceedings under the said Act in relation to the subject matter land and pass a fresh Award either by an agreement with the Petitioner or by following the due process of law under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’) and pay the requisite compensation. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Respondents to provide an alternate area of land at some adjoining area.

4. Bare perusal of the prayers, which are stated above in a nutshell, clearly shows that these Petitioners have come to the Court with the most omnibus prayers that could be made, and in essence, are challenging the entire land acquisition proceedings and awards passed in respect of their lands.

THE PETITIONER’S CASE

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is the owner of the subject matter land since the time of his forefather. It is contended that Railways came to the Uran area, where the subject matter land is situated sometime in the year 1962, when India- China war was raging and the Central Government acquired lands in order to speed up the process of laying down railway lines. It is contended that the farmers being the owners of the lands, did not object the acquisition because of the war situation. It is contended in para 4(b) of the petition, that the possession of the lands was taken for installation of the railway tracks and apart from track installation, the lands have not been developed. It is specifically stated in paragraph 4(c) of the petition that award for the land acquisition, as per information of the Petitioner is passed by the Respondents sometime in the year 1963 for the Diva- Panvel-Uran Railway and the name of the Petitioner’s predecessor (grandfather) has been removed as per mutation entry No. 749. This mutation entry is produced on record, which itself shows that it is dated 21.10.1966 by which name of the Railways is mutated.

6. It is further contended that due to the war situation and urgency, the Respondents had not proceeded for the payment of compensation and the right of the Petitioner’s predecessor to compensation, was stuck in procedural issues, and as a result, neither the Petitioner nor his forefather received adequate, fair and full compensation. It is contended that till date compensation has not been paid and therefore, the acquisition proceedings stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is further contended that many times, the Petitioner has requested the Respondents regarding the supply of necessary documents, however, the requests were neglected. It is further contended that since the acquisition stands lapsed, the Petitioner is entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, as per today’s prevailing market rate. It is further contended that till date, the amount o