JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of CWPs No.2622, 2825, 2828, 2832, 2847, 2856 & 2869 of 2014 as in all the cases the petitioners have laid challenge to the notification dated 24.12.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’). Though a request was made by learned State counsel to enable him to file reply but since a pure question of law has been raised, we do not deem it necessary to call upon the respondents to file their reply, at this stage. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.2622 of 2014. 2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (since repealed) has been issued on 24.12.2013 and was actually published in the newspapers on 02.01.2014. Meanwhile, the 1894 Act was repealed and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Its Section 24 says that :- “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such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. xxx xxx xxx 3. It is undeniable that no award has been passed in the instant cases and only the proposal for acquisition of land was notified under Section 4 of the 1894 Act (since repealed). It may be seen from Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act that where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed as on 01.01.2014 when the new Act came into force, the provisions of the new Act shall apply for determination of the compensation. In other words, the acquisition process initiated under the repealed Act would remain valid but the compensation shall have to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 4. In other words, the acquisition process initiated under the repealed Act would remain valid but the compensation shall have to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 4. Further question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned notification published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act prior to 01.01.2014 would sustain even when the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 old Act did not reach upto the stage of its Section 11 for the passing of award? 5. It appears from the plain reading of Section 24(1)(a) that it contemplates a situation where acquisition proceedings were near completion but no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made till the new Act came into force on 01.01.2014. In our considered view, the object behind this provision is to save the final declaration regarding acquisition made under the 1894 Act even if no award could be passed. The previous proceedings in such a situation would not lapse and shall remain valid except that the compensation shall be determined under the new Act. To say it differently, Section 24(1)(a) would be attracted only in a case where final declaration for acquisition of land under Section 6 of the 1894 Act had been made and only the award was left to be passed. 6. In the instant case, Section 4 notification has been issued less than a week before the new Act came into force. Even under the 1894 Act, the landowners were entitled to submit objections under Section 5A within 30 days from the date of publication of Section 4 notification. Much before expiry of that period, the new Act came into force. There was thus no occasion for the respondents to publish the final declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. In these circumstances, when due to legislative intervention, the respondents are unable to publish the declaration under Section 6 of the repealed Act, it appears to us that the notification under Section 4 alone cannot sustain and in such a situation de novo acquisition proceedings will have to be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 7. It further appears that in the instant case Section 4 notification has been issued deliberately as a ploy to prevent the landowners from taking benefits under the new legislation. 7. It further appears that in the instant case Section 4 notification has been issued deliberately as a ploy to prevent the landowners from taking benefits under the new legislation. It is well settled that an act must be done only in the manner as is required by a Statute and in no other manner. Since the land in question could not have been acquired in any manner under the old Act after publication of that proposal on 24.12.2013 and the only lawful recourse of its acquisition is the 2013 Act, it is imperative upon the respondents to follow that recourse. 8. For the reasons afore-stated, we allow this writ petition and quash the notification dated 24.12.2013 purportedly issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This order, however, shall not be an impediment for initiating fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 9. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------