JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition became remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2024. The operative part of the said order is extracted hereinafter.

"......Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of all the other issues on merits that have been raised in the respective petitions in accordance with law. "

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues, that since the declaration as became passed under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"), was so passed on 03.12.2014, thereby when the date of making of the said declaration, thus occurred subsequent to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2013"). Therefore, he argues that no legal relevance can become assigned to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 on 06.12.2013, nor any legality can become assigned to the consequent thereto award, as passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, on 06.09.2016.

3. Therefore, he submits that the notification(s) (supra), besides award dated 06.09.2016, are required to be quashed, and, set aside, thus on the ground, that since on the date of makings of the notification (Annexure P-3), the 'Act of 2013' had assumed force thus, thereby the proceedings for acquisition were required to be launched under the 'Act of 2013', than under the 'Act of 1894'.

4. The above raised contention before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is no longer res integra, as it becomes completely answered by a verdict drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. And others V Deepak Aggarwal and others" to which Civil Appeal No.5947-5948 of 2022 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.16631-16632 of 2018 became assigned. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.31 of the verdict (supra), paragraph whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter, had thereins formulated the question of law, thus for an answer being rendered thereons.

"31. Now, we will consider the other common questions involved in the captioned appeals. They pertain to the questions as to whether Section 4 notification issued under the L.A. Act prior to 01.01.2014 (date of commencement of 2013 Act) could continue or survive after 01.01.2014 and, as to whether Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act could be issued after 01.01.2014."

5. A reading of the hereinabove extracted formulated question of law, reveals that the issue which engaged the Hon'ble Apex Court appertained to whether the initiation of proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', commenced on the date of the making of a notification under Section 4 of the said Act, or whether the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 'Act of 1894', commenced on the date of making of a declaration under Section 6 of the 'Act of 1894'. It appears that the reason for the drawing of questions of law (supra), arose from the provisions occurring in Section 24(1) of the 'Act of 2013', provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter.

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-

(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed."

6. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court was engaged in making an interpretation of the phraseology "proceedings initiated under the Act of 189