Oral Order

Sunita Agarwal, J.

1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may simply record that the present petition has been filed in the year 2018 seeking for deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceedings, in view of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. On the presentation of the writ petition, the following order was passed on 19.11.2018:-

          "Heard Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for petitioners and Ms Nisha Thakor, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

          As per the order dated 6.3.2018 passed by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 9798- 9799/2016 with IA No. 30398/2018 and IA No. 31441/2018 with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9036-9038/2016 with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30577-30580/2015 are matters arising out of the issue about interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the said order, the Apex Court has observed as under:

          "We would have proceeded for hearing of these matters but as we are in the midst of hearing of another constitution Bench matter, we think it appropriate to list these matters after conclusion of hearing of Item No.506 i.e. W.P.(Crl.)No. 76/2016. However, the matters shall remain in the cause-list."

          In the said order dated 6.3.2018 passed by the Apex Court, order dated 21.2.2018 passed by another three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court is referred, in which the Apex Court has requested the High Courts not to deal with any case relating to interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

          In view of the above, this matter is adjourned. However, during pendency of this petition, status-quo as on date prevailing qua deposit of amount of compensation shall remain as it is, if deposited in the Treasury. It will be open for either of the parties to request this Court for hearing of the matter after outcome of the above matters pending before the Apex Court."

3. With the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Indore Development Authority V/s Manohar Lal & Ors.,(Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 9798-9799 of 2016 with IA No. 30398 of 2018 and IA No. 31441 of 2018 with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9036- 9038 of 2016 with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30577- 30580 of 2015) as per the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 therein, the deemed lapse provisions under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013, cannot be invoked to revive the concluded land acquisition proceedings, prior to the enforcement of the Act, 2013 with effect from 01.01.2014.

4. In the instant case, admittedly the award with respect to the land in question was declared on 10.10.2012 and as per the stand of the respondent - GIDC, the possession of the lands in question had been taken by preparing a rojkam/panchnama dated 10.01.2013, duly signed by the witnesses as well as by the Sarpanch and Talati of the village concerned, also signed by the Deputy Mamlatdar and officer on special duty, GIDC, Vadodara.

5. It is the case of GIDC in its affidavit that the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served upon the landowners calling upon them to collect the compensation amount after the award under Section 11 was declared by the Collector. However, since, the land owners/petitioners did not come forward to collect the compensation amount, the same has been deposited in the Government Treasury.

6. It is, thus, the case of the GIDC that the compensation was tendered to the land owners and the paper possession of the land in question has been taken much prior to the enforcement of the Act, 2013 with effect from 01.01.2014 and much prior to the institution of the present petition on 26.09.2018.

7. Be that as it may, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are not raising any issue of deemed lapse in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (Supra). However, the amount deposited lying with the Treasury may be disbursed to the petitioners, as the same has not been received by the petitioners so far in view of the interim order dated 19.11.2018 passed in the present petition whereby the status quo as on the date prevailing qua deposit of amount of compensation in the Treasury, has been directed to be maintained by the parties.

8. It is further sought to be submitted that the petitioners be permitted to file an application under Section 28 A of the Act, 1894 to seek compensation as has been paid to the similarly situated land holders in the reference proceedings, inasmuch as, the petitioners have not filed any reference to challenge the award dated 10.10.2012.

9. Dealing with the above submissions, suffice is to record that it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer by moving a proper application seeking for disbursement of compensation by appending documents of their right, title and interest in the lands in question. In case, such an application is moved within a period of two weeks from today along with the copy of this order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall be obliged to conduct an inquiry to verify the entitlement of the petitioners to receive compensation amount and make the disbursement strictly in accordance with law after due verification, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the application.

10. As regards the submission of the learned advocate about the filing application under Section 28A of the Act, 1894, we need not to comment on the same, in view of the statutory provisions. The present petition is dismissed, accordingly. Connected Civil Application would not survive and shall stands disposed of accordingly.