Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the respondent authorities be directed to redetermine the compensation and revise the award dated 20.11.2014 in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Acquisition Act of 2013').

2. Brief facts of the cases, which are not in dispute, are that the land of the petitioners have been sought to be acquired by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the MoRTH') for the purpose of building (widening to 4-lane with paved shoulder etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.65 vide Notification No.S.O.2151(E) dated 12.07.2013 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NH Act of 1956') and objections from the interested persons were invited. Declaration of acquisition of land of the petitioners was issued under Section 3D of the NH Act of 1956 vide Notification No.S.O.1213(E) dated 05.05.2014. The Land Acquisition Officer issued the award dated 20.11.2014 while determining the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it is admitted position that though the award was passed on 20.11.2014 but the compensation was not paid to the petitioners up to 31.12.2014. It is contended that after determining the compensation vide award dated 20.11.2014, the requisition for amount of award was sent and admittedly the same was received on 05.01.2015. It is argued that as per Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 and as per the clarifications issued by the MoRTH and the National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NHAI') from time to time, the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation as per the provision of Acquisition Act of 2013 and not as per the provision of NH Act of 1956.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the MoRTH has acquired total 28.72822 hectares of land but on 20.11.2014, the award was passed only for 3.41320 hectares of land and subsequent awards for acquisition of remaining 25.31502 hectares of land were passed on 16.01.2015, 10.04.2015, 27.08.2015 and 02.12.2015 and looking to this fact it is clear that the majority of landowners was not paid compensation on or before 31.12.2014, as per the guidelines and clarification issued from time to time, the petitioners are liable to get the compensation as per the provision of Acquisition Act of 2013, however, the respondents have illegally paid the compensation to the petitioners as per the provision of NH Act of 1956.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the respondents be directed to redetermine the compensation and revise the award dated 20.11.2014 as per the provision of Acquisition Act of 2013.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and argued that as a matter of fact the provision of Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 has no application in the case where the land has been acquired as per the provisions of NH Act of 1956.

7. It is argued that the Acquisition Act of 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014, however, by virtue of Section 105 (1) of the said Act, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the NH Act of 1956 as the said Act is specified in the Fourth Schedule. It is contended that later on, the Central Government amended Sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 vide Ordinance dated 31.12.2014 and applied the provision of Acquisition Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in