Timeliness in challenging land acquisition awards is critical; delays bar petitions.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed with the following prayers:-

“A. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other kind of writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the award passed by the collector dated 29-9-2016 in LAQ case no.358/2013 and further direct the respondent to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pass fresh award under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .

B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstance of the case may demand.”

2. Though prayer has been made in the writ petition to quash and set aside the award dated 29.09.2016 and to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act’ 2013”) and to pass fresh award but there is absolutely no statement in the writ petition as to why such a prayer is made. 3. From a perusal of the statement made in the writ petition, pertinent is to record that acquisition proceedings for the lands in question were initiated with the publication of a notification dated 25.10.2013, however the notification under Section 6 was published on 18.09.2014, i.e. after enforcement of the Act’ 2013. The award in continuation of the said proceedings was declared on 29.09.2016.

4. The contention in the writ petition is that as per Section 25 of the Act’ 2013, the Collector was required to make an award within a period of 12 months from the date of publication of declaration under Section 19 of the Act’ 2013 but, no award has been made within the said period and hence, the entire proceedings for acquisition shall lapse.

5. The further contention is that the Collector can take possession of the acquired land only after ensuring full payment of compensation within a period of three months from the date of making of the award as per Section 38 of the Act’ 2013. The further contention is that a token amount was paid to the petitioner in the year 2011 and in 2013, possession of the land had been taken without following the procedure prescribed under the Act’ 2013, which came into force on

01.01.2014.

6. The contention is that there are multiple violations of the provision of the Act’ 2013 in the land acquisition proceedings drawn with respect to the land in question and hence, the award is liable to be quashed.

7. All these submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the averments made in the writ petition and the statement made in the representations / applications moved by him from time to time cannot be appreciated for the simple reason that the award by the Collector was passed on 29.09.2016, which has brought the land acquisition proceedings to its logical end.

8. The present petition has been presented in the month of May 2025 and was registered on 30.07.2025 after a period of nine years of conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to challenge the same on the ground that it has lapsed for the reason that the award was not made within time. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as misconceived.