The petitioners’ grievance is that the compensation is not being given to them as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that 387 houses/structures/plots in Anapakatti village are acquired for rehabilitating the persons being affected by the submergence under the backwater of Narayanpur Reservoir, vide preliminary notification, dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure-A) and the final notification, dated 06.06.2012. The sixth respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned common award on 31.12.2013 (Annexure-B) determining the compensation in respect of 68 houses/structures/plots; however no award came to be passed in respect of the remaining 319 houses/structures/plots. The determination of the compensation in the common award in respect of the 68 persons is following the principles prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the similarly placed landlosers in respect of whom the award was passed on 19.12.2013 under the provisions of the old Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos.107720-27/2014 agitating their claim to receive the compensation, which would be granted to the remaining persons in respect of whom no award was passed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petitions by his order, dated 25.08.2014 with the liberty to the parties in the said petitions to avail of the remedy provided under Sections 18 and 28A of the old Act. The Division Bench on examining the proviso to Section 24(2) of the new Act allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the learned Single Judge’s order and by directing the respondents to pay the compensation in terms of the proviso to Section 24 of the new Act.

4. He submits that the petitioners have just received the award notice under Section 12(2) and not received the compensation amount.

5. Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is in no position to dispute the applicability of the Division Bench’s judgment, dated 23.03.2015 passed in W.A. Nos.100864-866/2014 and W.A. Nos.100063-67/2015.

6. Section 24 of the New Act reads as follows:

“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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 proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

7. The proviso to Section 24(2) has full application for the facts of the case on hand. It is not in dispute that out of 387