As per case facts, petitioners challenged the legality of a Section 4 notification and a Section 6 declaration issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring their land in ... Dhani Poonchla Wali, Neemkathana, District Sikar, for the expansion of an industrial area by RIICO. The petitioners contended that their land, although recorded as barren, was residential with existing houses, a fact acknowledged by a preliminary survey. They filed objections under Section 5A, citing the residential nature of their land, the availability of alternative barren lands, and the irrational exclusion of intervening plots. The Land Acquisition Officer's report rejected these objections with bald conclusions and without proper reasoning. An award was subsequently passed for other lands under the same declaration, but compensation for the petitioners' land was not assessed. Previous writ petitions were dismissed and later remanded for fresh consideration.The question arose whether the land acquisition proceedings were fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary, particularly regarding the objective consideration of Section 5A objections and whether the proceedings lapsed under Section 11A of the Act of 1894 due to the failure to pass a valid award for the petitioners' land within the stipulated timeframe.Finally, the Court concluded that the Section 5A enquiry was flawed and reduced to a mere ritual, as it failed to objectively consider the petitioners' specific objections regarding residential houses, alternative lands, and intervening plots. The Land Acquisition Officer's report lacked reasoned discussion for rejecting these critical concerns, vitiating the entire decision-making process. The Court further held that the award, while passed for other lands, was invalid for the petitioners' property because it explicitly stated that compensation for their land had not been assessed. Consequently, the acquisition proceedings for the petitioners' land were deemed lapsed by operation of Section 11A of the Act of 1894, given that the statutory period for making a valid award had expired without a determination for their land. The Court also rejected arguments that the acquisition should stand due to other landowners accepting compensation or due to administrative inconvenience.