I have had the benefit of reading the erudite judgment of my brother. While I am in respectful agreement with the conclusions of my brother, I would also like to express my view separately. The facts of the cases in the two appeals have been sufficiently dealt with by my learned brother. As observed by his Lordship, though the facts pleaded by the parties are quite numerous, the facts crucial for disposal of the appeals lie on a narrow compass. The following facts are well-established:

1. To facilitate execution of 1750 MW Demwe Power Hydro-Electric Project, the State Government decided to acquire a huge chunk of Kande land measuring 306.47 hectares belonging to the respondents in the year 2012.

2. The acquisition proceeding started with the issuance of the Notification dated 15-2-2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) for acquiring the said lands, which was followed by the Notification dated 3-8-2010 under Section 6(1) of the Act and thence by the Notification dated 19-11-2010 under Section 7 of the Act followed by the Notification dated 157-2011 under Section 8 of the Act.

3. Finally, the Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tezu district and the Deputy Commissioner, Lohit district on 11-5-2012. The awarded amount of Rs. 31,27,16,819/- was deposited by the appellant in favour of the Deputy Commissioner by cheque dated 6-6-2012.

4. Possession of the land was taken by the appellant on 22-6-2012. There is, thus, no room for controversy that all the events narrated above took place prior to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the Act of 2013” for short).

2. The grievance of the respondents in the writ petitions is basically directed against the non-payment of the compensation prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2013: the compensations were, as a matter of fact, not disbursed to them until 13-2-2014. As the compensation due to them was not deposited before the commencement of the Act of 2013, contend the respondents, all the beneficiaries specified in the Notification issued U/s 4(1) of the Act are entitled to assessment of their compensations in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, and they should paid accordingly. The learned Single Judge accepted this contention of the respondents and passed the impugned judgment with the following observations and directions:-

“Admittedly, the compensation in respect of the land value has not been determined in terms of the new Act of 2013. The award under Section 11 of the Old Act was also made in the year 2014.

Sub-clause 2 of Section 24 provides that where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act, but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Here in this case, although the physical possession of the land has been taken up (sic), the compensation has not been paid in terms of the new Act of 2013 and therefore, the compensation in respect of Horti, Agricultural crops and medicinal plants, etc. has not been paid.

Therefore, the State respondents are directed to initiate a fresh proceeding of land acquisition in terms of the new Act of 2013 and to pay compensation in respect of land and standing crops like horticultural crops/orange/spices and medicinal plants, etc. which has also been assessed by the respondent authorities as per annexure-2 in WP(C) No. 114(AP) 2015 within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

In terms of the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of.”

3. The appellant-com