ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in both the writ appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These two writ appeals are directed against the impugned common order dated 14-3-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.3018/2020 & 2995/2020, by which the writ petitions filed by the writ appellants herein have been disposed of granting liberty to them to avail the remedy under sub-section (6) of Section 20F of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act of 1989’) by making separate representations before respondents No.2 & 3 and respondent No.5 on the point of amount of compensation determined and also on the point of their entitlement for benefits under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’).

3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

4. The writ petitioners’ lands were settled for acquisition under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and ultimately, award was passed on 14-2-2020 & 17-2-2020 with a delay of 20 days, however, the delay was condoned and thereafter, possession of subject land has been taken from them. The writ petitioners have filed writ petitions for setting aside the awards dated 14-2-2020 & 17-2-2020 and restore the possession of lands to them and in alternative, to grant relief of employment and benefit of the Second Schedule & the Third Schedule of the Act of 2013, which the learned Single Judge did not entertain and held that delay in passing the award has been rightly condoned by the competent authority and granted liberty to avail the remedy under subsection (6) of Section 20F of the Act of 1989 and to make separate representations before respondents No.2 & 3 and respondent No.5 claiming the amount of compensation and also regarding entitlement for benefits under the provisions of the Act of 2013, which is sought to be challenged in these writ appeals.

5. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants in both the writ appeals, would submit that the learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in holding that the first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 20F of the Act of 1989 has rightly been invoked by the Railway administration, as each day’s delay has not been condoned and finding has been recorded that due to unavoidable circumstances and for the reasons recorded in writing, the award has been passed after the period of one year from the date of publication of declaration and as such, the land acquisition proceeding has lapsed and further, the benefits arising out of the Act of 2013 i.e. the Second Schedule & the Third Schedule, ought to have been granted by the learned Single Judge, as such, the writ appeals deserve to be allowed.

6. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State Counsel, however, supports the impugned order as also the awards and submit that the awards have rightly been passed condoning the 20 days’ delay in passing the award and liberty has already reserved in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants herein to invoke the provision contained in sub-section (6) of Section 20F of the Act of 1989 and to file representations claiming relief of the Second Schedule & the Third Schedule of the Act of 2013 and also employment in lieu of acquisition, as such, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. For sake of convenience, pleadings made in W.A.No.171/2022 arising out of W.P.(C)No.2995/2020 (Bhukhiabai and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) will be referred herein.

9. Admittedly, in the case of the present appellants, award was passed by the competent authority on 14-2-2020 and it has been recorded in paragraph 11 of the award that notification