B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a declaration that the proceedings of acquisition initiated by respondent no.19 for respondent no.20 vide award declared on 11.4.1996 in Land Acquisition Case No. 9147/8283 of Akola is statutorily lapsed by operation of law under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act” for the sake of brevity).

3. The facts in the present case are quite interesting. The land bearing Plot No. 33/1, Sheet No. 40A situated in the area of Akola Municipal Corporation originally owned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1869/98 and Writ Petition No. 789/01 was sought to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Akola Municipal Corporation. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the old Act”) was notified on 25.1.1983. The notification under Section 6 of the old Act came to be published on 10.11.1984. The award came to be passed on 11.4.1996. Being aggrieved thereby, the original land owners filed Writ Petition No. 1869/98 and Writ Petition No. 789/01. In the said petitions, while admitting them, the Court had granted an interim relief of statusquo of possession. By virtue of the said order, the State could not take possession. Finally, those petitions were heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court (B.P. Dharmadhikari & S.B. Shukre, JJ.) vide judgment and order dated 18.4.2015. During the pendency of the petitions, the 2013 Act was brought into force from 1.1.2014. The petitioners therein, therefore, amended the petition that in view of 2013 Act, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed. However, it was brought to the notice of the Court in the said proceedings by the Municipal Corporation as well as the State Government that the petitioners therein along with other family members had executed a saledeed on 8.6.2012 for a consideration of Rs.6,24,43,000/- and also handed over the possession of the land in question to the present petitioners. This Court, therefore, refrained from going into the question of applicability of Section 24(2) of the said Act since in its view the petitioners therein were no more the owners of the land and had also parted with the possession after receiving valuable consideration. The said petition came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 18.4.2015. The petitioners had challenged the same before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The SLP came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 27.7.2015. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed on 7.8.2015.

4. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the judgment of Their Lordships in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union of India & others vs. Shiv Raj & others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 4275, and in view of provisions of Section 24 of the Act, in case of acquisition of the lands prior to five years of the commencement of the 2013 Act, if the possession of the land is not taken and if the compensation is not paid, the land acquisition proceedings shall stand lapsed. The learned Counsel submits that admittedly in view of the orders passed in the earlier Writ Petitions as well as this petition the possession is not taken and, therefore, the first condition is very much applicable in the present case. He submits that admittedly the compensation is deposited in the Reference Court on 24.2.2015 and as such, the compensation is not paid prior to the commencement of the said Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the proceedings shall stand automatically lapsed.

5. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Coun