By the Court.—The petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the notification dated 13.7.2012 and dated 14.8.2013 issued in exercise of power under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1884) respectively. He has also prayed for quashing of the award dated 30.12.2013 as modified on 27.5.2014. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to prepare a fresh award in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. We have heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap on behalf of the Respondent Development Authority as well as standing counsel.

3. From the records of the writ petition it is apparent that the notification under Section 4 and under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 publised on 21.7.2012 and 16.8.2012 respectively. The award in respect of the land acquired was made on 30.12.2013, (reference Annexure No. 4 in the present writ petition.) It is further apparent from the record that the modifications were made made in the said award under the order dated 27.5.2014 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Irrigation Ghaziabad.

4. According to the petitioner since the date of notification of the award is subsequent to the enforcement of Act of 2013 i.e. subsequent to 1.1.2014, the entire proceedings stands vitiated. In the alternative it is contended that in fact award has been made subsequent to the enforcement of Act, 2013, thus compensation has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act 2013 in view of Section 24 (1) (a) of the Act 2013 while in the fact the compensation has been determined under the old Act, the entire award is bad. It is also stated that since possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid, the entire proceedings must lapse in view of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.

5. For the appreciating the controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner it would be worthwhile to reproduce Section 24 of the 2013 Act as the entire submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner revolve around the various clauses of the said section.

“Section 24 Land acqusition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 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 Section11 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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said Section11 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 aresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

6. From the date on which Section 4 and Section 6 notification were published as well as from the date of the origina