The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned acquisition order, holding that the land acquisition proceedings concerning the petitioners' lands had lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, due to inordinate delay, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and the absence of an award.

1. Petition and Legal Context

• Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
• Issue: Whether the acquisition proceedings for the petitioners' lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11A.

2. Factual Background

• Land acquisition for the Urmodi Project initiated in 1998.
• Petitioners, heirs of the original owner, contended that their lands (Gat Nos. 1763, 1776, 1787) were excluded from the 1999 award.

3. Delay and Procedural Gaps

• Post-1999, no steps were taken to include the petitioners' lands in subsequent acquisition proceedings.
• In 2016—after 17 years—a notice was issued for a hearing, resulting in the impugned order in 2018.

4. Respondents’ Defense

• Argued that the acquisition was procedurally valid and attempted to justify the delay.
• Claimed symbolic possession based on a 2010 letter.

Legal Analysis

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 11A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Requires an award to be made within two years of the declaration under Section 6.
• Article 300A, Constitution of India: Protects the right to property.
• Article 21, Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to livelihood.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. The respondents failed to finalize the acquisition proceedings or publish a fresh award for the lands in question within the prescribed timeline.
2. The symbolic possession claimed by the respondents was not substantiated with evidence of lawful procedures (e.g., panchnama).
3. Delay of 17 years in issuing a hearing notice was deemed grossly unreasonable and violative of natural justice.

Precedents Cited:

• Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P.: Stressed compliance with Section 11A for acquisition proceedings.
• Raghbir Singh Sherawat v. State of Haryana: Reiterated the need for actual possession over symbolic claims.

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the petitioners' rights, concluding:

1. The acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11A.
2. The impugned order violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
3. The petitioners retain possession and ownership of the lands.

Subjects:

• Land Acquisition
• Right to Property
• Natural Justice
• Section 11A Compliance
• Judicial Remedies in Land Law