As per case facts, the petitioner's land was acquired in 2007-2008 for a public purpose, with urgency provisions invoked, denying the right to file objections. An award was passed, and ... compensation tendered. After a previous writ petition for release was withdrawn with liberty to approach under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, the petitioner filed a representation and subsequently this writ petition. The appeal challenged the acquisition, arguing erroneous urgency invocation, petitioner's continued possession for 17 years, and unfulfilled public purpose. The question arose whether the acquisition proceedings should be quashed and the land released under Section 101-A, considering the delay, prior litigation, and claims of unfulfilled public purpose. Finally, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding they were barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, delay, laches, and acquiescence. The Court affirmed that Section 101-A is an enabling power for the State, not a vested right for landowners, and considered the land essential and utilized, with the petitioner's continued possession being unauthorized after vesting. The significant delay of 17 years was also a deciding factor.