N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ or direction to quash and set aside the land acquisition proceedings initiated in accordance with the notification dated 24th December 1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1894), and the consequent proceedings thereunder in respect of an office premises, situated on the 3rd floor of a building known as "Reliance Centre" at Ballard Estate, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property').

2. Though the instant litigation has a chequered history, spanning almost half a century, the background facts, essential for the determination of the present controversy, can be summarized as under :-

The petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a part of the Reliance Group of Companies. The subject property, then owned by Reliance Industries Limited, was initially requisitioned by the Controller of Accommodation under the provisions of Section (4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, by order dated 23rd January 1970. As the subject property remained under requisition for a long period, the Reliance Industries Limited had filed Writ Petition No.1679 of 1991 questioning its legality and propriety. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 for acquisition of the said property. Thus, the said Writ Petition No.1679 of 1991 came to be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Reliance Industries Limited filed a fresh petition, bearing No. 1956 of 1994, challenging the acquisition of the subject property, which was in the nature of part of a floor of the super structure, without acquiring the land underneath. This Court, by a judgment and order dated 10th March 2006, quashed and set aside the acquisition proceedings on the premise that the subject property could not have been acquired without acquisition of the land.

3. The State assailed the aforesaid judgment and order. In Civil Appeal No. 1699 of 2007, by the judgment and order dated 15th September 2017, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court holding, inter-alia, that the acquisition of the subject property without acquisition of the land was legal and valid, and it was directed that the acquisition proceedings be taken to a logical end.

4. In the interregnum, the Parliament enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act, 2013'), and repealed the Act, 1984, with effect from 1st January 2014. The Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, vide a notice dated 13th December 2018 purported to be issued under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 called upon the petitioners to submit the claims to compensation in respect of the subject property.

5. The petitioners have assailed the said notice dated 13th December 2018, on the count that after the enactment of the New Act, 2013, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 24 of the New Act, 2013, the resort to the provisions contained in the Act, 1984 is impermissible and the notice as contemplated by Section 21 of the New Act, 2013 ought to have been given and all the provisions of the new Act, 2013 ought to have been invoked. It was further asserted that since the award has not been made within one year of the Notification, as contemplated by Section 25 of the New Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings lapsed on this count also. By way of amendment, the petitioners have prayed for a further direction that the respondents, if they so desire, be directed to continue the acquisition proceedings in terms of the New Act, 2013.

6. We have heard Shri S.U. Kamdar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni, the learned Advocate Gen