1. Land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act — No award before 2013 Act enforcement — Subsequent award challenged as time-barred. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 935
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anand Sharma, J.
Dinesh Chourasiya S/o Sh. Jagdish Narayan Chourasiya - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing - Respondent
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 66 of 2019 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4793 of 2017, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13319 of 2021, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2025, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4209 of 2025, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7566 of 2025, S. B. Review Petition No. 70 of 2019 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4792 of 2017, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14081 of 2021, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 283 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3344 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15970 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17693 of 2022, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7297 of 2024, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4176 of 2025, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7565 of 2025, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7567 of 2025
Decided On : 08-07-2026
Important Points
In land acquisition proceedings where no award was passed prior to 01.01.2014, the limitation for making the award is governed by Section 25 of the 2013 Act, commencing from 01.01.2014, and not by the repealed Section 11A of the 1894 Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 24(1)(a) and 25; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 11 and 11A - Land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act where no award was passed prior to 01.01.2014 - Limitation for making the award is governed by Section 25 of the 2013 Act and not by Section 11A of the repealed 1894 Act - Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is a transitional provision; once proceedings fall within its ambit, all subsequent stages, including limitation for the award, are governed by the 2013 Act (Paras 23, 25, 26)
(B) Limitation for Award - The twelve-month period prescribed under Section 25 of the 2013 Act commences from 01.01.2014 for proceedings saved under Section 24(1)(a) - Repeal of the 1894 Act was a conscious legislative shift to a new regime; therefore, the repealed Section 11A cannot survive unless expressly saved by the subsequent legislation (Paras 25, 26, 27)
(C) Mandatory Nature of Statutory Timelines - Expropriatory laws must be acted upon strictly within the four corners of the statute - Public purpose cannot authorize the continuation of proceedings in derogation of a legislative command - Failure to make the award within the mandatory period without legally recognized exclusion of time renders the proceedings lapsed (Paras 30, 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
Acquisition proceedings for residential housing were initiated under the Act of 1894, with a notification under Section 4 issued on 12.10.2011 and a declaration under Section 6 issued on 15.04.2013. No award was passed before 01.01.2014, the date the Act of 2013 came into force. The award was eventually passed on 01.03.2017. The petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing that since it fell under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, the award should have been passed within twelve months of the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the award was passed on 01.03.2017, which is more than three years after the enforcement of the Act of 2013. The respondents failed to demonstrate any statutory extension of time or interim court orders that would justify the delay. Consequently, the award was passed beyond the period recognized by law.
Issues: Whether an award passed on 01.03.2017 in proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act (where no award was made by 01.01.2014) is legally sustainable under the mandate of Section 24(1)(a) read with Section 25 of the Act of 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: For land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act where no award was passed before 01.01.2014, the proceedings are governed by the transitional mechanism of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. In such cases, the limitation for making the award is exclusively regulated by Section 25 of the 2013 Act, and the 12-month period commences from 01.01.2014. Section 11A of the repealed 1894 Act does not apply to such proceedings. Any award passed beyond this 12-month window, absent legal exclusion of time, is void and the proceedings lapse.
Result: Writ petitions and review petitions allowed; award dated 01.03.2017 quashed and acquisition proceedings set aside.
(B) Limitation for Award - The twelve-month period prescribed under Section 25 of the 2013 Act commences from 01.01.2014 for proceedings saved under Section 24(1)(a) - Repeal of the 1894 Act was a conscious legislative shift to a new regime; therefore, the repealed Section 11A cannot survive unless expressly saved by the subsequent legislation (Paras 25, 26, 27)
(C) Mandatory Nature of Statutory Timelines - Expropriatory laws must be acted upon strictly within the four corners of the statute - Public purpose cannot authorize the continuation of proceedings in derogation of a legislative command - Failure to make the award within the mandatory period without legally recognized exclusion of time renders the proceedings lapsed (Paras 30, 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
Acquisition proceedings for residential housing were initiated under the Act of 1894, with a notification under Section 4 issued on 12.10.2011 and a declaration under Section 6 issued on 15.04.2013. No award was passed before 01.01.2014, the date the Act of 2013 came into force. The award was eventually passed on 01.03.2017. The petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing that since it fell under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, the award should have been passed within twelve months of the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the award was passed on 01.03.2017, which is more than three years after the enforcement of the Act of 2013. The respondents failed to demonstrate any statutory extension of time or interim court orders that would justify the delay. Consequently, the award was passed beyond the period recognized by law.
Issues: Whether an award passed on 01.03.2017 in proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act (where no award was made by 01.01.2014) is legally sustainable under the mandate of Section 24(1)(a) read with Section 25 of the Act of 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: For land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act where no award was passed before 01.01.2014, the proceedings are governed by the transitional mechanism of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. In such cases, the limitation for making the award is exclusively regulated by Section 25 of the 2013 Act, and the 12-month period commences from 01.01.2014. Section 11A of the repealed 1894 Act does not apply to such proceedings. Any award passed beyond this 12-month window, absent legal exclusion of time, is void and the proceedings lapse.
Result: Writ petitions and review petitions allowed; award dated 01.03.2017 quashed and acquisition proceedings set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- legislation and interpretation
- limitation
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashok Bansal Advocate, Mr. Pallav Choudhary Advocate, Mr. Ayush Bansal Advocate, Mr. Sameer Sharma Advocate, Mr. Aditya Joshi Advocate, Mr. Puneet Garg Advocate. Ms. Meera Bai Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kabra Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma Advocate,, Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Sharma Advocate, Mr. Tanmay Jain Advocate, Mr. V.D. Gathala Additional Government Counsel with, Mr. Umesh Chaudhary Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashok Bansal Advocate, Mr. Pallav Choudhary Advocate, Mr. Ayush Bansal Advocate, Mr. Sameer Sharma Advocate, Mr. Aditya Joshi Advocate, Mr. Puneet Garg Advocate. Ms. Meera Bai Advocate, Mr. Vikas Kabra Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma Advocate,, Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate, Ms. Jyoti Sharma Advocate, Mr. Tanmay Jain Advocate, Mr. V.D. Gathala Additional Government Counsel with, Mr. Umesh Chaudhary Advocate.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners: award beyond Section 25 limitation; Respondents: proceedings saved and substantially complied, interference would prejudice public purpose. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
3. Section 24(1)(a) makes 2013 Act fully applicable; limitation under Section 25 commences from 01.01.2014; no exclusion shown; award invalid. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
4. Proceedings under Section 24(1)(a) governed by 2013 Act; award must be made within twelve months from 01.01.2014; Section 11A not applicable. (Para 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 34 )
5. Writ and review petitions allowed; impugned award and consequent acquisition proceedings quashed for violating statutory mandate. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 )
6. Do pending land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse when no award is made before the 2013 Act comes into force?
No. Section 24(1)(a) saves such proceedings, but all subsequent provisions of the 2013 Act, including those on compensation, become applicable. (Para 20 , 23 )
7. Which limitation period applies to making an award in proceedings covered under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act?
Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies, not Section 11A of the 1894 Act. The twelve-month period under Section 25 commences from 01.01.2014. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 34 )
8. Can administrative delays or public purpose justify extending the statutory period for making an award under Section 25?
No. Mandatory statutory timelines cannot be overridden by public purpose or administrative explanations, unless a legally permissible exclusion or extension is demonstrated. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )
9. Is the 2013 Act's limitation provision applicable only where the period under the 1894 Act had not already lapsed by 01.01.2014?
Yes. Section 24(1)(a) applies only if time was still available as on 01.01.2014; a declaration that had lapsed under Section 11A before that date is not revived. (Para 24 , 34 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. By way of filing the above writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged Notifications dated 12.10.2011, Declaration dated 15.04.2013 and Award dated 01.03.2017 issued under Section 4, 6 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively and have prayed for quashing the entire acquisition proceedings along with the award.
2. As regards, S.B. Civil Review Petitions No. 66/2019 and 70/2019 are concerned, the same have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to recall and review orders dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging acquisition proceedings and award were dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, the review petitioners preferred D.B. Special Appeals Writ No. 1160/2017 and 1168/2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. Above Special Appeals were dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2018, whereby liberty was granted to the review petitioners to file application before the learned Single Judge and it was also observed that in the event of filing such applications, the Single Judge shall decide the same as per law. Hence, the above review petitions have been filed by the review petitioners.
3. Since the facts, cause of action and grievances in all the above cases are almost similar, and the all the petitions have arisen out of the same acquisition proceedings, therefore, with the consent of the parties, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. The facts, in brief, are that the State Government initiated acquisition proceedings in respect of land measuring 599 Bighas and 11 Biswas under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1894’) for the purpose of establishing residential housing scheme of the Rajasthan Housing Board. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 12.10.2011, proposing acquisition of the aforesaid land for a public purpose. The said notification was published in the Official Gazette on 14.10.2011 and was thereafter, published in two newspapers on 29.01.2012 in compliance with the statutory requirements. Subsequently, public notices of the substance of notification were issued to the affected allottees/landholders on 04.05.2012. Thus, last date of publication of notification under Section 4 was 04.05.2012.
5. Thereafter, after considering objections of the land owners, the Land Acquisition Officer submitted report under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 to the State Government. After satisfying with the public purpose, the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 15.04.2013 in respect of the acquisition of the aforesaid land. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was subsequently published in the newspapers namely Dainik Navjyoti and Samachar Jagat on 10.02.2015. Following the declaration, the public notice was issued on 10.03.2015, which was the last date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Further, public notices under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1894 were issued on 23.03.2015. Notices under Section 9(3) of the Act of 1894 were thereafter served upon the affected allottees on 29.10.2015. Simultaneously, the landholders were also afforded an option, in terms of the prevailing Government policy, to opt for allotment of developed land in lieu of monetary compensation.
6. It is not in dispute that though acquisition proceedings had commenced under the Act of 1894, however, no award had been passed prior to 01.01.2014, i.e., the date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force. Ultimately, the award came to be passed on 01.03.2017, purportedly under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 read w
