As per case facts, the Petitioner, a registered society, purchased land in 1963, which was later acquired by the State for urban development in 1993. The Petitioner claimed unawareness of ... the acquisition Award, stating that physical possession was not taken, and compensation was not paid, asserting that the acquisition proceedings should lapse under the 2013 Act. The Petitioner, having constructed a health center and church on the land, sought to set aside the 1993 Award and de-notify the land after 31 years. The question arose whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to alleged non-possession and non-payment, despite the significant delay in challenging the original Award. Finally, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, ruling that it was barred by delay, acquiescence, and laches. The court found that the State had taken possession through official records and tendered compensation, thus the land had vested in the State, and the Petitioner had not filed timely objections.