The lands vested in the State Government cannot be returned to the original landowners, even if unutilized, and the proceedings under the Old Act, 1894 had not lapsed.

V.M. Sahai, J.

1. As these writ-petitions raise a common question of law, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the respective petitioners as, according to the petitioners no procedure had been followed under Section 44-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Old Act, 1894"). The petitioners have also prayed that their lands which were acquired should be returned to them in original position under the provisions of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the New Act, 2013"). The petitioners have further prayed that the respondent authority be directed that in view of the provisions of Sec. 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 the proceedings under the Old Act, 1894 with regard to the lands of the petitioners have lapsed. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petitions, the petitioners have prayed for an injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the acquisition of the lands in question and from making any construction on the lands acquired under the Old Act, 1894.

3. As the facts of each of the writ petitions are common and similar, the facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 7558 of 2015 for the sake of brevity.

3.1 The petitioners were the owners of the respective lands situated in village Moti-Khavdi, Taluka and District, Jamnagar. On 21.1.1993 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai sent a proposal to Collector, Jamnagar for acquisition of land in village Moti Khavdi, Jamnagar for their Crude Oil Terminal Station to be established in Jamnagar District, and for the incidental work such as manufacturing, storage, marketing etc. In pursuance of the proposal, on 15.2.1993 the Special Land Acquisition Officer published a notification under Section 4 which was followed by the publication of notification on 15.2.1994 under Section 6 of the Old Act, 1894. The Deputy Collector, Mid-day Meal, Jamnagar passed an award under Section 11 of the Old Act, 1894 on 12.12.1994 in LAQ Case No. 8/1993. It is admitted by the petitioners that after the award under Section 11 of the Old Act, 1894 the possession was taken from the petitioners on 23.12.1994 and compensation was paid on 9.1.1995 which was accepted without any protest by the petitioners. From 1994 till date the respondents are in possession of the acquired land. The name of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. was mutated in the revenue record on 18.1.1995.

3.2 On 13.12.2013 one Shri Bharatbhai Dhanabhai Nangesh applied to the Land Acquisition Officer to supply details and documents under the Right to Information Act pertaining to the acquisition of land under LAQ No. 8/93 as the same acquisition proceeding also applies to the lands of the petitioners. On 3.1.2014, the Public Information Officer and Chitnis to Collector, Jamnagar, forwarded the request made by Shri Bharatbhai Dhanabhai Nangesh under the RTI Act to the Public Information Officer and Deputy Collector, Mid-day Meal Scheme, Jamnagar. The said Bharatbhai Dhanabhai Nangesh again made an application on 12.12.2014 under the RTI Act, specifically requesting to supply the details about the transfer of the land in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd. and the order/award passed by the competent authority.

4. Mr. Dilip B. Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these petitions has urged that the prayer made in these writ petitions to quash the acquisition proceedings deserves to be allowed and the lands which were acquired in the year 1994 should be returned back to the petitioners, as the lands have not been utilized by the respondent No. 3 for the purpose for which they were acquired. Mr. Rana further urged that in view of Section 44A of