The main legal point established in the judgment is the lapse of acquisition proceedings due to the delay in passing the Award, and the applicability of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 1894 Act. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of complying with the statutory time frame for passing the Award and the determination of compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. COLABAWALLA J.

1. All the above Writ Petitions inter alia seek to challenge the Award dated 22nd April 2015 passed by Respondent No.1 under which the lands of the Petitioners were acquired. We must mention that the prayers sought in all the Writ Petitions are identical and for the sake of easy reference the prayers in Writ Petition No.1712 of 2018 are reproduced hereunder:-

"(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order, direction in the nature of writ Certiorari, calling for the records and proceeding from the office of the Respondent No.1 i.e. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metro Centre No.1 Uran District Raigad in the matter of the award being No.4/2006 relating to the acquisition of the lands situated at Village Jasai, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigad for the Sewri-Nhava Road of the CIDCO under New Bombay Project and after scrutiny and perusal as to propriety, legality validity and Correctness of the award dated 22.4.2015 passed therein be declared as illegal, invalid as against the provision of the Act and accordingly be quashed and set aside.

(b) That his hon. court may be pleased to hold that the impugned award dated 22/4/2015 bearing no.4 of 2006 for acquiring the suit land has lapsed according to provisions of Section 11A of The Land Acquisition Act."

2. The facts in all the above Writ Petitions are really undisputed. The Petitioners lands were to be acquired for the MTHL Sea Link Project, at Jasai Village, Tal-Panvel, Dist-Raigad. This was because CIDCO had envisioned an ambitious project of the "Sewri-Nhava Road" under the New Bombay Project. The execution of this project was entrusted to the MMRDA. CIDCO had made an intention for acquisition of lands admeasuring about 15.79.10 Hectares required for the said project situated at village Jasai, Tal-Uran, Dist-Raigad, out of which CIDCO has claimed to have acquired about only 8.66.00 Hectares of land from the concerned land owners without taking recourse to the provisions of the statute by obtaining some agreements etc. For the balance area of 7.13 Hectares, acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the 1894 Act") came to be initiated which includes the Petitioners lands. Accordingly, and to take these acquisition proceedings forward, a Section 4 notification came to be published in the Government Gazette on 2nd July 2009. Further, individual notice under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act were also issued to the concerned landowners whose lands were proposed to be acquired for the said "Sewri-Nhava Road Project". It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were also served with the notice under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. It appears that in the present case the urgency clause [under Section 17 of the 1894 Act], was applied to this acquisition and hence no enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act was conducted. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act came to be published in the Government Gazette on 19th June 2012 and published in the local newspaper on 18th July 2012. The final date of publication of the Section 6 declaration was 22nd December 2012. However, despite this, the Award, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, came to be passed only on 22nd July 2015.

3. In this factual backdrop, Mr. Thakur, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submitted that though in the Petition it is averred that because of the provisions of Section 11A of the 1894 Act, the above acquisition has lapsed because no Award is passed within 2 years from the final date of publication of the Section 6 declaration (i.e. within 2 years from 22nd December 2012), he is not pressing this argument in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, Goshikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation V/S Mahesh & Ors [(2022) 2 SCC 772]. He fairly submitted that this decision clearly stipulates that if acquisition proceedin