opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the acquisition
proceedings were initiated much prior to the enactment of the Act of
2013 and substantial steps had already been undertaken under the
provisions of the Act of 1894. It is submitted that notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894 were duly issued and published
and thereafter, notices under Sections 9(1) and 9(3) were also
served upon the affected landholders. According to the respondents,
the acquisition proceedings were pursued continuously and
substantially complied with the statutory requirements.
15. Learned counsel contended that the acquisition in
question pertains to a large tract of land involving numerous
landholders and allottees and, therefore, considerable administrative
exercise was required before finalisation of the award. It is submitted
that notices were issued to all concerned persons and they were also
afforded an opportunity to opt for developed land in lieu of
compensation in accordance with the applicable Government policy.
Consequently, the time consumed in completion of the acquisition
process cannot, by itself, be construed to invalidate the proceedings.
