### Lapsing of Land Acquisition Under Section 11A Entitles Landowner to Compensation Under 2013 Act.

The Petitioner challenged the non-payment of compensation and non-completion of acquisition proceedings for land in Survey No. 106/6, Village Karave

Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) were issued in 1986 and 1987 respectively for the Navi Mumbai project

While an award was declared in 1989 for adjoining lands, the subject land was omitted from the valuation and compensation computation

The state and CIDCO admitted that no compensation was determined or paid for this specific plot and that the 1990 possession receipt did not cover it

Despite this, CIDCO later demarcated plots on the land

The Petitioner sought a direction for fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act

The court primarily applied Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that an award must be made within two years of the Section 6 declaration, or the proceedings lapse

It relied on Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to property against deprivation save by authority of law

The court followed Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, identifying seven sub-rights under Article 300-A, including the right to an efficient process and fair compensation

Regarding delay, it applied principles from Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, which restrict the state from using laches as a shield to validate illegal land deprivation

The court found that because the subject land was omitted from the 1989 award's valuation and compensation columns, no award existed in the eyes of the law for that specific plot

Consequently, by operation of Section 11A of the L.A. Act, the acquisition lapsed in September 1989, two years after the Section 6 declaration

The court rejected CIDCO’s argument that this was a mere "computational error" (distinguishing Tukaram Balya Patil), noting that here, no money was ever calculated or paid, and no legal possession was taken

The court held that the Petitioner's constitutional right under Article 300-A was violated, as the state had no "authority of law" to retain land for which proceedings had lapsed

Given the Petitioner was a minor at the time and the state’s admission of the legal void, the plea of delay was dismissed

While returning the land was deemed impractical due to CIDCO's subsequent development, the court directed the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; the respondents must determine and disburse compensation to the Petitioner within one year. The Writ Petition was allowed