ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. By means of the present petition, the petitioners herein seek the following reliefs:-

“A. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to admit and allow this application;

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the entire land acquisition proceedings undertaken qua the land in question belonging to the petitioners;

C. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo over the land in question belonging to the petitioners;

D. YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to grant any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice may be granted.”

2. It may be noted that on the presentation of the writ petition, by the order dated 25.04.2019, noticing that the issue pertaining to the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the Act, 2013”) was engaging attention of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the matter has been adjourned sine die, reserving liberty with either of the parties to file a note upon the outcome of the same. However, no such note has been filed until the matter came up on the Board from the cut off, on 12.02.2026, in view of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) adopted by the High Court .

3. Mr. Tatvam K. Patel, learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners and would admit that on the legal issue about the applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013, nothing much can be argued in the writ petition, inasmuch as, the acquisition proceedings had been culminated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act, 1894”), much before the commencement of Act, 2013 with effect from 01.01.2014.

4. He would admit that with the decision of the Constituion Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129], on the legal aspect of interpretation of Section 24 (2) and the lapse of land acquisition proceedings culminated with the award dated 04.03.1999, in the present case, no argument can be made.

5. We, therefore, find that there is no merit in the writ petition in so far as the claim of the petitioners about the applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013, inasmuch as, the land acquisition proceedings culminated with the making of the award dated 04.03.1999 cannot be said to have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 Act.

6. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the purpose for which the land in question had been acquired by virtue of the notifications published in the year 1996, was for development of the TransportNagar, which has not been achieved so far. The land in question remained in the physical possession of the petitioners till date and has not been utilized for the purposes for which it was acquired. The contention, thus, is that the land in question is liable to be released in favour of the petitioners for this reason alone.

7. This submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners deserves rejection as well for the simple reason that there is no provision under the Act, 1894 to release the land in question, acquisition of which has been culminated with the making of the award. The only provision for release under Section 48 of the Act, 1894 was attracted in a case where the State Government was at liberty to withdraw for acquisition of any land of which the possession has not been taken. The said provision cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, after declaration of the award under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Collector was empowered to take posssession of the land by virtue of Section 16, whereupon, the acquir