Land acquisition proceedings lapse automatically if the award is not made within the statutory period prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and cannot be revived through impermissible extensions.

ORAL ORDER

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

1. It is submitted by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 11.08.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1901 of 2025 and other allied matters, wherein this Court, has held as under:-

“2. While issuing notice to the State Respondents, in the order dated 14.02.2025, we have noted as under:-

“1. The challenge in the present petition is to the notification dated 18.07.2024 issued under Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short as the " 2013' Act") with the contention that the said notification is dehors the provision itself.

2. It was argued by Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. B.K. Gohil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that with the declaration notification issued on 18.09.2021, the award under Section 25 of the Act' 2013 was required to be declared within a period of 12 months (1 year) from the date of publication of declaration under Section 19 of the Act' 2013, which is 18.09.2021 in the instant case.

3. The attention of the court is invited to the notification dated 02.09.2022 issued under the first proviso to Section 25 for extension of period of one year provided therein to make an award under Section 23 of the Act' 2013. A perusal of the said notification at page '29' of the paper-book indicates that the extension of the period for making of the award was for one year with effect from 18.09.2022. It is, thus, argued that in any case, with the first extension, the time period for making of the award had expired on 18.09.2023, which has resulted in lapse of the acquisition proceeding by virtue of Section 25 of the Act' 2013, which talks of automatic lapse. The contention is that, if the language employed in Section 25 of the Act' 2013 is read and understood, it means that there is a mandate by the Legislature for making of the award within a period of 12 months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 of the Act' 2013 and in case of non-making of the award within the said period, the entire proceedings for acquisition shall stand lapsed.

4. The result is that as the award was not made on or before 18.09.2023, within the extended period by virtue of the notification dated 02.09.2022, the entire acquisition proceeding stood lapsed. However, by means of the notification dated 18.07.2024, after a period of approximately one year from the lapse of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 25 , an effort has been made for revival thereof by extending the time taking aid of the first proviso to Section 25 of the Act' 2013, which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, is impermissible.

5. It was argued that there is no question of revival of acquisition proceeding with retrospective effect, with the issuance of the notification dated 18.07.2024 by virtue of first proviso to Section 25 of the Act' 2013.”

2. When the matter was taken up today, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the learned Advocate General would submit that, as per his instructions, the State Respondents have realized that there was a mistake on the part of the State Authorities in extending the period of making of the final declaration beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act’ 2013”).

3. Considering the said fact, we hold that the acquisition notifications dated 18.09.2021, 03.11