JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by them. 2. Appellants are the owners of different properties situated at Bisnalkoppa village of Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. Their properties have been acquired as they were likely to be submerged in the back waters of Upper Krishna Project, Narayanapura. Preliminary notification dated 05.11.2011 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). It was published on 11.11.2011 in the Karnataka Gazette, followed by final notification dated 28.06.2012 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 30.06.2012. 3. Totally 183 properties belonging to 183 persons have been acquired for the aforementioned purpose. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed a common award dated 19.12.2013 in respect of only 53 land owners and 53 properties, excluding the remaining 130, in respect whereof, as stated in the award steps were proposed to be initiated subsequently to pass awards. 4. It is submitted at the bar, during the course of arguments that in the remaining 130 cases, awards have been now passed on 23.09.2014 as per the provisions of the New Act i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act No.30/2013) (for short, ‘the New Act’). 5. The prayer sought by the writ petitioners was for a mandamus directing respondents 3 to 6 to defer giving effect to the partial award dated 19.12.2013 passed by respondents 3 to 6 and for a direction to determine the amount of compensation in its entirety in respect of all lands covered under the preliminary notification, as per the New Act. In other words, the contention of the petitioners was, that they were also entitled for payment of compensation in terms of the provisions contained in the New Act, though award in respect of their cases were passed prior to the coming into force of the New Act. 6. The question that therefore falls for consideration in these appeals is, whether the appellants are entitled for payment of compensation in respect of their lands in accordance with the provisions of the New Act, keeping in mind the language employed in Section 24, particularly the proviso to Section 24(2) of the New Act? 7. 6. The question that therefore falls for consideration in these appeals is, whether the appellants are entitled for payment of compensation in respect of their lands in accordance with the provisions of the New Act, keeping in mind the language employed in Section 24, particularly the proviso to Section 24(2) of the New Act? 7. The learned Single Judge has rejected the contentions of the petitioners holding that as awards had been passed in the case of the petitioners prior to the coming into force of the New Act, in terms of the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act, the proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Old Act, as if the Old Act had not been repealed. The learned Single Judge has also opined that it was open for the writ petitioners to remedy under Section 18 or 28A of the Act seeking similar compensation as would be awarded in favour of the owners of other lands acquired under the same preliminary notification. 8. Section 24 of the New Act 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. (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 subsection (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 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.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would clearly disclose that if no award under Section 11 of the Old Act has been made as on the date the New Act came into force, then all provisions of the New Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply. Where, an award under Section 11 has been made before coming into force of the New Act, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Old Act as if the Act has not been repealed. 10. For answering the question now raised, reference to Section 24(1) of the New Act will not be sufficient. In fact, the proviso appended to Section 24 of the New Act would be relevant. Before that, we may also refer to Section 24(2) of the New Act. It deals with cases where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Old Act, wherein award under Section 11 had been made five years prior to the commencement of the New Act, but physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. In such cases, the entire acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the Government if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the New Act. 11. In such cases, the entire acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the Government if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the New Act. 11. Section 24(2) of the New Act has no application to the present case, because the awards in these cases are not passed five years prior to the commencement of the Act. Indeed, awards have been passed on 19.12.2013. 12. Proviso to Section 24 of the New Act as extracted above will have relevance to the facts of the present case. It states that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of 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 Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the New Act. 13. The intention of the legislature in enacting the proviso is very clear. In case where lands have been acquired under the Preliminary Notification published under Section 4 of the Act and awards have been passed in respect of the same before the commencement of the Act, merely because the awards have been passed or merely because in respect of few of the land owners award amount has been deposited in their account, the obligation of the State/beneficiary to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the New Act is not taken away. Further, if awards have been passed in respect of majority of the lands under a given notification and compensation amount is not deposited in their accounts, all the beneficiaries whose lands are specified and notified in Section 4(1) notification would be entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of the New Act. Thus, the proviso to Section 24(2) of the New Act, is an exception to what has been stated in Section 24(1)(b) of the Act. Section 24(1)(b) of the New Act states that if award has been already passed under the provisions of the Old Act as per Section 11, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Old Act only. 14. The present cases are clearly covered and governed by the proviso because the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Preliminary Notification in respect of 183 properties has been published on 11.11.2011. 14. The present cases are clearly covered and governed by the proviso because the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Preliminary Notification in respect of 183 properties has been published on 11.11.2011. Award has been passed on 19.12.2013. Therefore, in the absence of the proviso, the State would have been right in contending that as the award has been passed prior to the Act coming into force, the land owners would be entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Old Act and not under the provisions of the New Act. The effect of the proviso has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. The effect of the proviso being, at the risk of repetition, that even if an award has been passed prior to the Act coming into force, if majority of land holders have not been deposited with the amount of compensation, then they would also be entitled for compensation under the provisions of the New Act. 15. If the facts of the present case are explained with some more details, the fallacy of the contention of the State would be clear. Section 4(1) notification and Section 6(1) notification pertain to 183 properties. Awards are passed only in respect of 53 persons and properties, allegedly as a first stage, deferring passing of the awards in respect of 130 other cases to a future date. Even in respect of these 53 land owners, admittedly no amount is paid as compensation nor any amount has been deposited either into the Court or in their accounts. It is thus clear that if in respect of persons in whose favour awards have been passed prior to the commencement of the New Act, no amount has been deposited, then as per the proviso to Section 24 compensation has to be paid as per the New Act. The requirement of the proviso is that in order to be governed by the provisions of the Old Act, atleast in majority of cases where awards have been passed, compensation amount ought to have been deposited in the account of the land owners. When the factual matrix discloses that not even in a single case award amount has been deposited though awards have been passed earlier to the commencement of the New Act, question of depriving the writ petitioners of their entitlement to have compensation paid in terms of the New Act does not arise. When the factual matrix discloses that not even in a single case award amount has been deposited though awards have been passed earlier to the commencement of the New Act, question of depriving the writ petitioners of their entitlement to have compensation paid in terms of the New Act does not arise. If such a contention is accepted, it will run counter to the intent and purpose of the legislation. When the proviso expressly provides remedy to the land owners to seek compensation under the New Act, question of driving the petitioners to agitate their rights under Sections 18 or 28A of the Old Act does not arise. Therefore, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of compensation under the New Act. 16. Hence, these writ appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Respondents are directed to pay compensation to the writ petitioners in terms of the proviso to Section 24 of the New Act (Central Act No.30/2013). No costs.