When a land acquisition is finalized through a valid consent award, legal heirs cannot retroactively challenge the authenticity of the consent of the original owner. Furthermore, landowners who obstruct the acquisition or refuse compensation cannot claim the process is illegal based on the resulting delay in deposit.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the present petition has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of one Gordhanbhai Maganbhai Patel [three in numbers] to seek the following reliefs:-

“9(A)Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to restore the possession of the land to the petitioners bearing Survey No. 194 admeasuring 2 Hectors, 04 Are and 47 square meters situated in the Sim of Village Tarsava, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara.

(B) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding that the acquisition of the land bearing Survey No. 194 admeasuring 2 Hectors, 04 Are and 47 square meters situated in the Sim of Village Tarsava, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the New Act;

(C) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings of the land bearing Survey No. 194 admeasuring 2 Hectors, 04 Are and 47 square meters situated in the Sim of Village Tarsava, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara as per the award at Annexure-A to the petition;

(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to stay further proceedings in pursuance of the Award at Annexure – A to the petition qua the petitioners’ agriculture land bearing Survey No. 194 admeasuring 2 Hectors, 04 Are and 47 square meters situated in the Sim of Village Tarsava, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara;

(E) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition;

(F) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

2. It may be noted, at the outset, that the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 1894’); concluded with the award dated 11.06.1993, was filed soon after the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 2013’) w.e.f. 01.01.2014. As noted hereinabove, the main prayer in the writ petition is to consider the acquisition proceedings having been lapsed in view of the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act’ 2013. However, at the inception of the argument, Mr. B.S. Patel, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not pressing the prayer for lapsing of the acquisition proceedings in view of Section 24(2) of the Act’ 2013 in light of the decision of the Constitutional Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others reported in [(2020) 8 SCC 129].

3. The remaining prayers are pressed into service to assert that the present is the case for quashing and setting aside of the entire acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as, they had been conducted in a colourable exercise of power. One of the prayers is to issue direction to the respondent authorities to restore possession of the land-in-question to the petitioners.

4. At the outset, we may note from the statemen