Land acquisition finality preserved after objections considered, award made and possession taken; later delay and price rise were insufficient.

Once objections under the acquisition procedure are received and considered, and the award is made with possession taken, the land vests in the State free from encumbrances. A later writ challenge and the passage of time do not, by themselves, invalidate the acquisition. Non-commencement of construction because of litigation and any rise in land prices were held insufficient to show legal infirmity in the notification or declaration. The challenge to the acquisition notifications and declaration therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated for want of proper opportunity under Section 5-A and for alleged delay and failure of public purpose, warranting interference with the acquisition notifications.

Analysis: Notice under the acquisition law and Rule 30 had been issued, objections were filed and considered, and the declaration under Section 6 followed. After the award was made and symbolic possession was taken, the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The later filing of the writ petition and the lapse of time thereafter did not furnish a ground to invalidate the acquisition. Neither the fact that construction had not commenced because of litigation nor the increase in land prices showed any legal infirmity in the notification or declaration.

Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were not vitiated, and the challenge to the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once objections under the acquisition procedure are considered and the award is made with possession taken, the acquisition attains finality and subsequent delay, non-utilisation caused by litigation, or rise in land value does not by itself justify judicial interference.

---