The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would continue under the old Land Acquisition Act if the award was passed before the commencement of the new Act, and the interpretation of Sec. 24 of the new Act as provided by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR,J. - The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) which read thus :-

" (B) By appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature of writ, may please kindly be direct the respondents to determine and to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioners/claimants in respect of their acquired land in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, as per the award in SR No.37/2001 under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act dtd. 29/11/2013 and for that purposes appropriate orders may kindly b passed in favour of petitioners.

(C). By appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature of writ, may please kindly be transfer the references of the petitioners u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed and pending before the court of Civil Judge Senior Division Dhule as stated in EXHIBIT-D to the Authority constituted u/s 51 as references u/s 64 of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition/ Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act 2013 and for that purposes appropriate orders may kindly be passed in favour of petitioners.

2. The petitioners are agriculturists and they were holding respective lands at village Ghodasgaon, Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule. The respondent No.3 had initiated acquisition proceedings in SR/37 of 2001 for Nimna Tapi Prakalpa, Padalse Dam. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act") was published on 18/4/2010, which was followed by notification dtd. 4/7/2011 under Sec. 6 of the old Act. The award dtd. 29/11/2013 came to be passed under Sec. 11A of the old Act. However, till commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013, (Hereinafter referred to the as the "New Act") neither possession of lands was taken nor was compensation parted in favour of the petitioners.

3. In the year 2017, notices under Sec. 12(2) of the old Act were issued in purusnace to award passed by the respondent No.2. The possession of the lands under acquisition was taken and compensation amount came to be disbursed as per the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Deputy Collector, Dhule.

4. Mr. Vijay B. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that though the award under Sec. 11 of the old Act was passed on 29/11/2013, the possession of the lands continued with the petitioners. Notices under Sec. 12(2) of the old Act were issued in the year 2017 and possession was taken by the respondents. He would submit that in view of Sec. 24(1)(b) of the New Act, proceedings under the old Act would continue, however, petitioners would be entitled to the compensation as per the provisions of the new Act.

5. He would further submit that since the compensation was deposited in the year 2017 followed by delivery of possession, the proviso to Sec. 24(2) of the new Act would apply and the petitioners would be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the new Act.

6. Mr. Siddharth Yawalkar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that the award under Sec. 11 of the old Act has been passed on 29/11/2013 . Therefore, the proceeding would be governed by the old Act, as if the Act has not been repealed. He would rely upon sub-clause (b) of Sec. 24(1) of the new Act to contend that neither there is lapsing of award nor are the petitioners entitled to compensation under the new Act.

7. Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that in the facts of the present case, the proceeding would continue under the old Act as the Award under Sec. 11 has been passed on 29/11/2013. As per the requisition of the respondent No.2, compensation amount has been de