The court consolidated three writ petitions due to common issues and petitioners (!) .

Writ Petition No. 30001 of 2018 sought to declare the preliminary notification issued by the respondents for land acquisition as illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights and land acquisition laws (!) . The petitioners claimed ownership of agricultural land and alleged that the respondents issued the notification without proper procedure, including failing to determine social impact and public purpose, and by incorrectly applying Acquisition Rules, 2017 instead of Acquisition Rules, 2014, as no consent was given by the landowners (!) (!) (!) (!) . They also argued that the market value was not revised, and their objections were ignored (!) (!) .

Writ Petition No. 24648 of 2020 aimed to declare the respondents' action of trespassing onto the petitioners' lands as illegal and arbitrary, violating constitutional rights and land acquisition laws (!) (!) . The petitioners, who had purchased the land and cultivated it, alleged that the respondents trespassed and attempted to demolish structures without proper notice or following due procedure (!) . They had previously sought information about the acquisition but received none, leading them to believe the proceedings were dropped (!) .

Writ Petition No. 4878 of 2025 challenged proceedings issued by the respondent authorities, deeming them arbitrary and illegal for violating principles of natural justice and land acquisition laws (!) [1]. The petitioners claimed ownership of the land, which had a history of assignment and subsequent sales. They were aggrieved by the preliminary notification and the lack of personal hearing for their objections (!) . Despite their objections and an RTI application, they received no information. They later discovered an award was passed without proper procedure or notice, which they are challenging (!) .

The respondents, in their counter-affidavits, stated that the land requisition was for establishing an Industrial Park/SEZ and that the government granted exemption from certain provisions of the 2013 Act (!) (!) . They claimed that landowners voluntarily agreed to give their lands for a lumpsum amount and that possession was handed over (!) . They also mentioned that compensation was deposited and that the stay granted by the court was hindering developmental activities (!) (!) .

The petitioners argued that the respondents failed to provide personal hearings for their objections and that the award dated 12.10.2020 was passed mechanically and without application of mind (!) . They highlighted that the award mentioned a writ petition that was filed after the award was passed, indicating a procedural flaw (!) . They also pointed out that the RDO's report in the award contradicted earlier communications regarding the presence of trees on the land (!) (!) . The petitioners emphasized that notices for acquisition must be clear and meaningful, and that the respondents did not follow the prescribed procedure (!) .

The court analyzed the timeline of events, noting that the declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act was issued on 04.01.2019, but the award was passed on 12.10.2020, which is beyond the twelve-month period stipulated in Section 25 of the 2013 Act (!) (!) . The court found this to be a violation of Section 25, rendering the award procedurally ultra vires and unsustainable (!) . Consequently, the award dated 12.10.2020 was set aside concerning the petitioners' land, and the acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed (!) . The respondent authorities were given liberty to resume proceedings from the stage of Section 11 of the 2013 Act afresh, and the petitioners were allowed to raise all objections independently (!) . The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly (!) .