ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In this case, petitioners have sought a relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of compensation at the revised rate to the petitioners in view of acquisition of land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 measuring an area 0.22/71 decimals and 30 decimals respectively acquired for construction of Parsauni Minor Canal situated in village Ajanauli within Bisfi Block in the district of Madhubani. 3. It appears that the Government has taken a policy decision for construction of a canal and for that there was necessity to acquire land and, accordingly, notices were issued u/s 4, 6 and 9 of the Act and ultimately land of petitioners appertaining Khata Nos. 41 and 42 plot Nos. 1462, 1463, 1465 and 1464 measuring an area 30 decimals were acquired. 4. It appears from the record that on 11th August 2008 notices were issued to the petitioners asking them to appear for receiving compensation but even thereafter they did not choose to appear and receive the amount. 5. Now by this writ petition, petitioners submit that in Section 24(2) view of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short, ‘New Act’), the proceeding will abate but prayer has been made for enhancement of compensation in terms of New Act. 6. Counsel for the State submits that, the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of canal and that land has been consumed for that purpose which cannot be said to be not public purpose. Award was prepared on 28th July 2008, petitioners were served notice u/s 12(2) of the Act on 13th December 2008. When the petitioners did not appear to receive the amount, it was deposited in the Government Treasury. 7. Claim has been made by the State Counsel that the said amount was deposited in terms of letter dated 13th May 1991 issued by the Secretary which shows that after the payment of compensation, rest amount would be deposited in the name of particular land-holder in the Government Treasury and he further submitted that the Collector in terms of the letter aforesaid has deposited the amount and now petitioners cannot take benefit of their own wrong in not coming forward and after enactment of the new Act they cannot claim higher compensation. 8. 8. Now it will be appropriate to consider the manner and mode of making payment of compensation amount has been provided in Section 31 of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as follows:— “31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court—(1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, an shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section. (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 appointment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted.” 9. On reading of Section 31 of the Act it shows that the Collector would tender the amount of compensation and the award amount to the petitioners to which they are entitled to and in case of refusal to receive the amount, the Collector shall deposit the award amount in the court. Here the court is the Land Acquisition Court. 10. It is an admitted fact that the said amount which the petitioners are entitled to was not deposited in the court rather it was deposited in the Government Treasury. The letter that has been relied upon by the petitioner cannot be said to have preference over the provisions of the Act. 11. The new Act has come in operation with effect from 1st January 2014. For proper appreciation of the present case, it is relevant to quote Section 24(1) and (2) of the Act 2013:— “24. (1) 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 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 afresh 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 holding 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.” 12. On reading of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act which has been divided in three parts, it appears that one part is related to when no award has been prepared on the date of enforcement of the New Act and in that circumstance, provision of the New Act will apply for determining the compensation amount. In the second case, where award has been made, proceeding shall continue under the provisions of the new Act, as if the old Act has not been repealed. Sub-section (2) deals with different situation where award has been prepared under Section 11 of the Act five years or more prior to commencement of this Act, but physical possession of the land has not been given or compensation has not been paid, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been lapsed and the Government, if so choose, shall initiate the proceeding afresh for acquisition in accordance with the new Act. 13. The question would arise, admittedly award was prepared on 13th August 2008, new Act has come into operation on 1st January 2014. Admittedly five years prior to commencement of the new Act the land of petitioners has been acquired and possession has been taken but alternatively it is also a fact that the amount of compensation in terms of Section 31 has not been paid. 14. Admittedly five years prior to commencement of the new Act the land of petitioners has been acquired and possession has been taken but alternatively it is also a fact that the amount of compensation in terms of Section 31 has not been paid. 14. Contention of counsel for the State is that they cannot take benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act unless they raised objection u/s 18 of the Old Acquisition Act, as in the present case, Section 18 of the Old Acquisition Act will apply. 15. Under Section 18 of the Old Act, when a person is not accepting the amount or there is a dispute of apportionment on the objection made by the parties, the matter will be referred to the Collector. Here is a question of application u/s 24(2) of New Acquisition Act, there is no question of raising any objection but the proceeding will abate by operation of law and where it provides a particular thing would happen, at particular eventuality, that will be deemed to have taken effect and for that there is no need to file application. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others has held that the compensation deposited in the Treasury, cannot be said to be payment made to the person concerned, rather if the person refuses to receive the amount, the mode has been provided u/s 31 to deposit the same in the court. 17. The Court has further held that it is a settled proposition of law that where power is given to do a thing in a particular way, the thing must be done in that way only. 18. Reliance has also been placed on Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253(2) where the Court has held that in the event of non-payment of award amount five years prior to commencement of the Act 2013, the proceeding by operation of law will abate. 19. It will be relevant to quote Para-11 of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) which is as follows:— “11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). 19. It will be relevant to quote Para-11 of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) which is as follows:— “11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz; (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act 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 the beneficiaries specified in Section4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act.” 20. This view has been further affirmed in Union of India and others Vs. Shiv Raj and others in Civil Appeal Nos.5478-5483 of 2014. This Court has also dealt with this aspect of the matter in CWJC No. 14921 of 2013 Vinay Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others where in a similar situation, the Court held that in view of Section 24(2) of the New Acquisition Act, the entire land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Old Acquisition Act will lapse. But here the question would arise when by and large every person has taken the compensation amount, it will not be appropriate for the public purpose that the Government be asked to return the land which has been acquired from the petitioner. The Court can only give relief of compensation and that should be calculated in terms of New Land Acquisition Act. 21. With the above observation/direction, this petition is disposed of. ?