JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. These civil appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.05.2007 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1956 of 2004 and Civil Writ Petition No. 6299 of 2004 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, upholding acquisition of lands of the Appellants.

2. Since both the appeals are identical involving similar question of law, for the sake of brevity and convenience, we would deal with the facts of Civil Appeal No. 6256 of 2009 which are stated hereunder:

The State Government of Haryana issued a Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act'') on 27.11.2002 for acquisition of the Appellant's industrial land for public purpose, namely, for the construction and development of Industrial Estate and laying of sewerage and storm water drainage in Sector 3, District Karnal, Haryana. The Appellant filed objections Under Section 5A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector submitted his report to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industries Department, recommending that the area of 37 Bhigas 13 Biswas be not acquired which included the area of land belonging to the Appellant. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation in its report also admitted the fact that the industries are situated on the land sought to be acquired for industrial purpose and did not recommend that the land be acquired. The above two reports were not considered and the State Government issued declaration notification Under Section 6of the Act on 14.11.2003. An Award Under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 30.05.2005. The Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana questioning the correctness of the acquisition proceedings. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the acquisition proceedings cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the plan does not reflect clearly as to where the sewerage and storm water drainage area have been earmarked and that the acquisition of land of the Appellant was for an important public purpose. Hence, these appeals.

3. In the appeals, the applications have also been filed to dispose of the appeals in terms of para Nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 wherein this Court interpreted Section 24(2) of the Resettlement Act, 2013 and held that not taking possession of the acquired lands of the Appellants, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the same are lapsed. Para No. 11 in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 203 in support of the legal submission that not accepting the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector to delete the lands of the Appellants from acquisition, the State Government issuing declaration Under Section 6 of the Act without assigning reasons has vitiated the acquisition proceedings.

4. We have heard Mr. Pravin Parekh, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant. He has relied upon the cases of this Court in Bimla Devi and Ors.v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 583, Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2014 (10) SCALE 388 and Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Raj and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 564 in support of his legal submissions.

5. During the pendency of these appeals, the Parliament enacted 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' (for short "Resettlement Act, 2013"). The relevant Section 24(2) of the Act reads as under:

24(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said