Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2015 dismissing W.P (C) No.33302 of 2014 filed by the petitioner-appellant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are:

Properties having an extent of 100 sq mts. in Sy. No.275/9, 2010 sq.mts. in Sy.No.278/1, 680 Sq. mts. In Sy.No.280/2 and 80 Sq. mts. in Sy. No.280/10 were notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to “as the 1894 Act”) by Notification dated 20.03.2012. Eighty per cent of the compensation was paid in advance. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 27.03.2012. Notice under Section 9 was issued on 17.11.2012. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 24.10.2013 determining the compensation for acquisition of the land. Petitioner claimed to have been informed on 01.07.2014 about disbursement of 20% balance compensation. Petitioner filed the Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature thereof calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash the same.

(ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature thereof directing respondent No.2 to pass an award pursuant to Exhibit P1 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) within the permitted time failing which the land acquisition proceedings be declared to have lapsed.”

3. Before the learned Single Judge submission which was pressed on behalf of the petitioner was that Ext.P2 award dated 24.10.2013 ought to have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) which enactment having received the assent of the President on 26.09.2013 should be deemed to have come into operation with effect from 26.09.2013 and the award dated 24.10.2013 could not have been made under the 1894 Act. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the 2013 Act having contemplated that the Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette appoints and the Central Government vide Notification dated 19.12.2013 having appointed 01.01.2014 as the date from which the Act was to come into force, there was no infirmity in the award dated 24.10.2013 having prepared under the 1894 Act. The further contention that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) was also repelled holding that there being no case that the award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act benefit of Section 24(2) is not available. The Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 21.01.2015 dismissed the Writ Petition against which this Writ Appeal is filed.

4. We have heard Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same submissions which were raised before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 2013 Act having received the assent of the President on 26.09.2013, the Act shall deemed to have become law and come into operation with effect from 26.09.2013 and the Notification dated 19.12.2013 notifying 01.01.2014 as the date of coming into force of the 2013 Act is inconsequential. The 2013 Act had become a law on the date on which it was assented by the President and thus the award dated 24.10.2013 should have been made only under the 2013 Act and not under the 1894 Act. He further submitted that 20% balance compensation having not been received till the enforcement of the 2013 Act, the entir