PRAYAGRAJ, Aug. 12 -- The Allahabad high court has dismissed 154 writ petitions challenging a 2024 land acquisition award passed in Varanasi under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, holding that the market value need not be computed under the land acquisition law of 2013. The petitions sought to set aside the award dated January 10, 2024, passed by the special land acquisition officer, Varanasi, for acquiring the petitioners' properties in Bairwan village, Pargana Kaswar Sarkari, Tehsil Sadar, Raja Talab, Varanasi district. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Varanasi Development Authority (VDA) in 2000. The court found that the award had been made by the acquisition officer in compliance with an earlier direction issued by the court and, therefore, did not warrant interference. Dismissing the writ petitions filed by Varanasi resident Vijay Kumar and 153 others, a division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh observed that an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in compliance with a judicial direction to frame it in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another vs State of UP and another, cannot be challenged on the ground that the market value should have been computed as on January 1, 2014, when the new land acquisition law of 2013 was enforced. The petitioners' counsel argued that the VDA had changed the public purpose for which the land was being acquired without obtaining permission. Rejecting this plea, the court said, "It would suffice to say that the said ground was available to the petitioners in the earlier litigations also, but the same was never raised in the earlier round of litigations." The court said the present round of litigation was confined to the challenge to the award formulated in accordance with its earlier directions. Since the award had been made in compliance with those directions, there was no need to examine any other ground, as all other grounds of challenge had already been rejected by the court in the earlier round of litigation. The court made the observation in its judgment dated August 7....