Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral):-- 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. 2. The petitioner’s case is that the possession of the subject land is with the petitioner and the respondents have not taken possession of the same. He also submits that the Award was made on 19.09.1986 (Award No. 207/1986-87), which is more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. He also submits that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, all the ingredients necessary for deeming the acquisition to have lapsed, as provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, have been satisfied. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents disputes the position with regard to the possession being with the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the possession was taken over on 08.05.1987. Insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not want compensation and the statement on behalf of the petitioner recorded at the time of the initial challenge to the acquisition proceedings in the order dated 06.11.2003 in CWP No. 405/1983 titled Gopal Sharma and Others v. Union of India and Others was that the petitioner does not want any compensation and that the land ought not to be acquired. Earlier, the land was in the name of one Gopal Sharma, who stated that he was not interested in the land any longer inasmuch as the trust (the petitioner herein) was the owner of the land. The learned counsel for the respondents state that because of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that it does not want compensation, the same was not paid to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents state that because of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that it does not want compensation, the same was not paid to the petitioner. 4. If we examine the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183 , it would be found that the Supreme Court took the view that for the purposes of Section 24(2), compensation shall be regarded as “paid” if the compensation has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the Court where a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be made on the happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act reads as under:- 31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court. (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18: Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. 5. It would be evident from the above that one of the contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act is where the persons interested do not consent to receive the compensation. Even if we assume that in this case the petitioner had not consented to receive the compensation, it did not absolve the respondents from depositing the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 of that Act could be submitted. Even if we assume that in this case the petitioner had not consented to receive the compensation, it did not absolve the respondents from depositing the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 of that Act could be submitted. It is an admitted position that the respondents and, in particular, the Land Acquisition Collector has not deposited any amount representing the compensation in Court as required under Section 31 (2) of the 1894 Act. Clearly, the respondents cannot be regarded as having paid the compensation to the petitioner/interested persons. That being the position, even though the issue of physical possession is unresolved, in view of the very same decision of the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would get attracted. 6. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition ought to be deemed to have lapsed. The lands of the petitioner measuring 3 bighas and 8 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of village Pul Pehlad Pur, New Delhi, and covered by the subject acquisition are as follows:- S. No.Khasra No.Area 1.237/12-16 2.239/1/10-12 7. The acquisition in respect of the aforesaid lands shall be deemed to have lapsed. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.