JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This batch of writ appeals preferred under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, are directed against the impugned order (common) passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions holding that the writ petitioners (private respondents herein) are entitled for compensation under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013).

2. Since common facts and question of law are involved in this batch of writ appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. For disposal of these appeals, Writ Appeal No. 361 of 2022, arising out of order dated 12.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 2899 of 2020, and connected cases, is taken as the lead case.

3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the lands of the writ petitioners were subject to the land acquisition proceedings by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894) on 22.09.2012 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, issued on 30.04.2013 (Annexure P/3 to the writ petition). A notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 was issued for public hearing providing an opportunity to raise objection vide notification dated 27.05.2013. Thereafter, the award was passed on 11.11.2013 (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition) under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 and the possession of the land of the writ petitioner was taken admittedly on 09.12.2013. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the award dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition) was not given effect to and the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent No. 3 passed a second and amended award on 06.05.2014. In the meanwhile, the Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 01.01.2014, and therefore, the writ petitioners are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013 in view of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and also for the reason as per award dated 11.11.2013 neither compensation was paid nor the writ petitioners were noticed in compliance of Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894. Compensation has been paid after lapse of more than 5 years without any interest and resettlement and rehabilitation amount on 16.06.2020. Accordingly, writ petitions were filed seeking appropriate writ/direction for determination, payment of compensation and consequential benefits of interest for subject acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

4. The respondent/State and the beneficiary i.e. the NTPC filed their return stating that the writ petitioners are not entitled to compensation as per the Act of 2013 but they are entitled for compensation under the Act of 1894. The writ petitioners have the remedy of filing a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 to seek enhancement of the compensation amount and as such, writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order held that in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013 by virtue of proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, against which this batch of writ appeals have been preferred.

6. Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/NTPC would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the writ petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation in accordance with the Act of 2013 as the award was already passed on 11.11.2013 and the possession of the land was taken on 09.12.2013 and therefore, irrespective of the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894, the award dated 11.11.2013 has become final, tho