By the Court.—Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the Government Order dated 1.6.2015 issued by the Up-Sachiv, U.P. Government (Revenue Department-13), Lucknow, Circular dated 10.6.2015 issued by the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow, Order dated 5.12.2015 passed by Collector Moradabad, Order dated 7.12.2015 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and the consequential award dated 22.3.2016 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad.

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government Order, Circular and consequential orders a writ of mandamus has also been claimed to command the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners in consonance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 treating the cut off date for determination of compensation as 1.1.2014 when the Act 2013 was enforced.

3. Aforesaid relief is being claimed in the background of the following facts:

4. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and predecessor of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were co-owner in possession of Plot No. 293 situate in Village-Sonakpur, Tehsil and District-Moradabad. The aforesaid plot alongwith certain other land was subject-matter of acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4 (1)/17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 16.8.1994 and declaration was made on 27.10.1995. The notifications were challenged by the petitioners by filing two writ petitions i.e. Writ-C No. 37125 of 1995 (Krishna Autar and others v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ-C No. 3553 of 1996 (Sri Naresh Chandra Agrawal and others v. State of U.P. and others).

5. A counter-affidavit had been filed by Moradabad Development Authority wherein it admitted that in view of interim order passed in the said two writ petitions, the award in respect of the land involved in the dispute i.e. Plot No. 293 was not prepared. The aforesaid two writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgement and order dated 7.8.2015 by making following observations :

“Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of the aforesaid averment made in the counter-affidavit which is the undisputed position, the petitioners are entitled for payment of compensation under Act 30 of 2013 in view of Section 24 (1)(a) and prayer is being confined to that extent. Section 24(1)(a) reads as under:

“24. Land acquisition 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)...................”

The aforesaid provision clearly stipulates that in case, an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has not been made then after enforcement of the new Act, all provisions of the new Act relating to determination of compensation shall become applicable. Learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri P.K. singh appearing for the respondents do not dispute the legal position.

It is an admitted case on behalf of the respondents that the award in respect of the land in dispute in the present two writ petitions has not been prepared.

In such view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled for determination and payment of compensation under the provisions contained in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to prepare the award in respect of the land involved in the present two writ petitions in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act.”

6. In complianc