Public Purpose Can't Override Statutory Timelines: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 2011 Land Acquisition Over Delayed Award
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 2011 after holding that the award, passed in 2017, was barred by the mandatory timeline prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that once Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act became applicable, the limitation under Section 25 governed the proceedings, and not Section 11A of the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
“Public purpose, however laudable, cannot authorise continuation of proceedings in derogation of a legislative command… land acquisition laws are expropriatory in nature and when such statute creates a power and simultaneously prescribes the manner and period within which such power is to be exercised, the authority must act strictly within four corners of the statute,” it observed.
For context, the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 2011 in which no award was passed till January 1, 2014, when the 2013 Act came into force. The award was ultimately passed in 2017, in favour of the acquisition.
This was challenged by the petitioners in light of Section 24(1)(a) and Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
As per Section 24(1)(a) when no award was passed under the 1894 Act before the commencement of the 2013 Act, the proceedings survived and were subject to the 2013 Act.
As per Section 25 of the 2013 Act, the award had to be passed within 12 months from the date of declaration of the acquisition.
In this background, the petitioner argued that since the award was passed in 2017 i.e. more than 3 years after the enforcement of 2013 Act, and after 4 years from the date of declaration, the acquisition proceedings stood vitiated and could not have culminated into a valid award.
On the contrary, the State argued that since the acquisition was initiated much prior to the 2013 Act, wherein substantial steps were taken, the time consumed in its completion, by itself, could not be construed to be invalidating the proceedings.
After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the arguments by the petitioners, and observed,
“Section 11A of the Act of 1894, being a provision of the repealed enactment, cannot survive independently unless expressly saved by the subsequent legislation… no legislative indication preserving the applicability of Section 11A of the Act of 1894 in respect of proceedings governed by Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013.”
“…period for making the award in such cases is governed by Section 25 of the 2013 Act, which mandates that the Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months… Any interpretation permitting continued application of Section 11A of the repealed Act of 1894 would defeat the legislative intent underlying Section 24 and would create an anomalous situation whereby a repealed statute would continue to regulate substantive aspects of proceedings intended to be governed by the new enactment.”
Further, the Court held that the fact that substantial steps were taken under the 1894 Act, could not override an explicit statutory mandate. It was observed that where a statute prescribed that an act had to be performed within a specified time, the authorities with statutory powers were bound by such timelines.
The Court also stated that if the State's arguments were accepted, it would amount to permitting the authorities to keep acquisition proceedings pending for indefinite duration despite statutory prescribed timelines, which would be contrary to the objective of 2013 Act.
In this background, the award was held to be in violation of the 2013 Act, and hence unsustainable.
Accordingly, the petitions were allowed, and the entire acquisition proceedings were set aside.
Title: Dinesh Chourasiya v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 316
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Bansal Advocate; Mr. Pallav Choudhary Advocate; Mr. Ayush Bansal Advocate; Mr. Sameer Sharma Advocate; Mr. Aditya Joshi Advocate; Mr. Puneet Garg Advocate; Ms. Meera Bai Advocate; Mr. Vikas Kabra Advocate; Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents: Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma Advocate; Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate; Ms. Jyoti Sharma Advocate; Mr. Tanmay Jain Advocate; Mr. V.D. Gathala Additional Government Counsel with Mr. Umesh Chaudhary Advocate.