1. In these three writ petitions, petitioners have properties located in Nampally, Hyderabad, which are acquired by the State. Petitioners challenge determination of compensation on the properties owned by them and pray to grant directions to determine the compensation in accordance with provisions of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” (ACT 30 OF 2013). The three writ petitions are disposed of by this order.

2. The facts in issue are in narrow compass. State set in motion the acquisition of private properties in accordance with provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Repealed Act) on a requisition made by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation(GHMC). Section 4(1) notification dated 8.4.2013 was issued listing 20 private properties located in Nampally village and mandal of Hyderabad district including the properties of petitioners herein. Notices under Section 5-A of the Repealed Act were issued on 8.4.2013. Petitioners filed their objections opposing the acquisition. On consideration of the objections filed by the petitioners, orders were passed by the District Collector in proceedings No.C/260/2013 dated 9.7.2013 rejecting the said objections. Thereafter draft declaration was approved by the District Collector on 19.7.2013 and same was published in Hyderabad District Gazettee. The award was made on 23.12.2013. Award dealt with extent of properties acquired and compensation payable. ‘The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (ACT 30 OF 2013)’ has come into force with effect from 1.1.2014. Act 30 of 2013 repealed Act, 1894. Under Section 12(2) of repealed Act notification was issued on 26.7.2014 directing the petitioners to receive compensation determined and also to vacate the premises. Aggrieved thereby these three writ petitions are instituted.

3. Heard Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P. No. 28713 of 2014, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W P No. 29482 of 2014, Sri Mayur Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P. No. 23476 of 2014, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition (Telangana) and Sri Vivek Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for Hyderabad Metro Rail Authority.

4. Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that entire land acquisition proceedings are vitiated on account of the promulgation of new Act which has come into force from 1.1.2014, whereas the proceedings were initiated under the Old Act. He further contended that no award was passed by the time new Act has come into force. The respondents were illegally claiming that an award was passed before 1.1.2014 by anti-dating the award. If the respondents have passed award on 23.12.2013, as claimed by them, the award ought to have been communicated immediately, whereas, till July, 2014 no intimation of passing of an award was given and copy of the award is not communicated till date.

5. He further contended that even assuming that an award was passed before 1.1.2014, as contended by the respondent authorities, as copy of the award was not communicated by 1.1.2014, in law it cannot be said that an award was passed before 1.1.2014, and therefore compensation has to be determined in accordance with mandate of Act 30 of 2013, whereas in the instant case compensation was determined as per the provisions of Repealed Act. He further contended that unless copy of the award is served, award is not said to have been made. Process of making of an award is complete only if notice under Section 12(2) of the Repealed Act along with copy of the award is served. The act of making of an award is an administrative act; it is in the nature of an offer made on behalf of the State and unless the offer is communicated and acceptance is given by the property owners, award cannot be said to have been made. Non-co