1. By these writ petitions, a claim has been made for award of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013”).

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 21st November, 2012. It was published in the newspaper on 21st December, 2012. It was to acquire land for 200 ft. wide road. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published on 14th March, 2013. The draft award was passed followed by its approval by the Government and its issuance on 6th September, 2013.

3. The Act of 2013 came in effect since 01.01.2014. The amount of compensation was deposited in the court on 13th August, 2015. It was required to be calculated in accordance to the Act of 2013 because it was deposited after 01.01.2014. The respondents deposited the amount of compensation as was determined under the Act of 1894. A prayer is, accordingly, made to direct the respondents to calculate the amount of compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013 and make the payment. To support the argument, reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in AIR 2014 SC 982 has been given. A further reference of the judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 Bombay 52 has been given. In the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche (supra), issue raised herein was considered and decided by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court thus to be applied and, accordingly, writ petitions may be allowed.

4. Learned counsel while giving specific reference of proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, submitted that if award was passed but compensation has not been paid to the majority of land holders then they are entitled for the compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 applies to the present cases, thus prayer made in the writ petitions may be granted.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad along with Mr. Atul Singh Chauhan has opposed the petitions. He submits that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not apply to the present cases. It is not a case where award was passed five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013. The award was passed on 6th September, 2013 thus it is not five years prior to the Act of 2013. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would apply, if award was passed five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 and compensation has not been deposited in the account of majority of the land holders. In that case, all the beneficiaries, specified in the Notification under Section 4, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013.

6. This proviso is appended to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The conjoint reading of Section 24(2) with proviso would show that after passing the award, acquisition would not lapse on account of non-payment of compensation if it has been paid to few beneficiaries/land holders leaving majority. In such cases, all the land holders are to be dealt with similarly and, accordingly, compensation is to be paid in accordance to the Act of 2013. The acquisition would lapse only when all the beneficiaries/land holders have not been paid compensation. The proviso has to be applied in consonance to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 as it cannot be taken as a separate provision, thus harmonious construction of the provision is to be made.

7. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (supra), the Apex Court has not considered the issue aforesaid. The issue therein was quite different. It is taken to be obiter by the Full