Award Passed via Section 24(1)(a) Lapses if Recorded Later Than Twelve Months From Commencement of 2013 Act

The State of Rajasthan initiated land acquisition proceedings for 599 Bighas and 11 Biswas in District Tonk for a housing scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

A Section 4(1) notification was issued on 12.10.2011, and a Section 6 declaration was issued on 15.04.2013.

Although the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) came into force on 01.01.2014, no award was passed by that date.

The respondents eventually passed an award on 01.03.2017.

The petitioners challenged the acquisition, arguing the award was time-barred under the 2013 Act.

Two review petitions were also filed seeking to recall earlier dismissals based on an incorrect application of Section 11A of the 1894 Act.

The Court applied Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, which stipulates that where acquisition was initiated under the 1894 Act but no award was made, the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to compensation determination apply.

It further applied Section 25 of the Act of 2013, which mandates the Collector to make an award within twelve months from the date of declaration, failing which the proceedings lapse.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Mahesh Others (2022) 2 SCC 772, which held that in Section 24(1)(a) cases, the limitation period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act begins to run from 01.01.2014.

The Court reasoned that since no award was passed before 01.01.2014, the proceedings were governed by Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

It rejected the applicability of the two-year limitation under Section 11A of the 1894 Act, holding that the 2013 Act intended a transition to a new regime.

Applying the Gosikhurd Project doctrine, the Court calculated that the twelve-month period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act commenced on 01.01.2014 and expired on 31.12.2014.

Since the award was passed on 01.03.2017—over two years late—and the respondents failed to show any stay order or statutory exclusion of time, the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed.

The Court also noted that neither was compensation paid/deposited nor was physical possession taken, meaning the land never vested in the State.

The Court allowed the writ and review petitions, quashing the award dated 01.03.2017 and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings as they had lapsed by operation of law.

The respondents' argument regarding "public purpose" was dismissed as it cannot override express statutory mandates.