ORDER : S.R. Waghmare, J. These two writ petitions are taken up together since they arise out of common question raised by the petitioners Societies namely Shwetank Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (W.P. No. 10951/12) and Suniket Cooperative housing Society Ltd. (W.P. No. 10958/120. This common order shall regulate both these appeals. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Societies have challenged the order dated 12-10-2012 passed by respondent No. 1/Principal Secretary, the State of M. P. reviewing its earlier order dated 20-12-1984 and 11-8-1995 without issuing show cause notice to the petitioners and without complying with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 1132/03. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are Housing Societies duly registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act and the petitions are filed through the respective Presidents. The petitioner Society is the bhumi swami of the land bearing Survey Nos. 58 (parts) and 59 admeasuring 5.337 hectares situated at village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore in W.P. No. 10951/12 and the petitioner Society is the bhumiswami of the land bearing Survey Nos. 60 and 61 admeasuring 3.711 hectares situated at village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore in W.P. No. 10958/12. The petitioner purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 11-7-1997 and 11-12-2000. However the respondent No. 2/IDA had framed the Scheme No. 97 regarding the lands situated in village Hukmakhedi and the nearby villages in the said scheme and the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were undertaken. The validity of the Scheme however happened to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 550/1991 and during pendency of the petition, the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner Society, Shri Sitaram Kaluji moved an application for release of his land from the said scheme before the State Government (Resp. No. 1). The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under section 52 of the Act directed the IDA vide order dated 20-12-1994 to acquire only 1.025 hectares of the land required for Ring Road and to release the remaining 8.023 hectare land falling in Survey Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 61 of village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and Distt. Indore from the Scheme No. 1997. A copy of the order dated 20-12-1994 is Annexure P/4. 58, 59, 60 and 61 of village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and Distt. Indore from the Scheme No. 1997. A copy of the order dated 20-12-1994 is Annexure P/4. It has also came about that under the new master plan, 2021, there is no proposal for acquirement of 1.025 hectares of land for the Ring Road and 'land use' of the disputed said land was reserved for residential purpose in the master plan of 2021. However, the respondent/IDA requested the respondent No. 1/State to review its order dated 20-12-1994 and the State, however, rejected the request and hence the earlier directions remained in force and the government also called for a compliance report. The petitioners, therefore, assumed that their application for release of their land from the Scheme before the State Government would be duly processed and hence the petitioners did not press the petitions and the same were dismissed as not pressed. Thirty six other petitions regarding the same Scheme No. 97 of the IDA were heard on the merits and allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 10-12-1998. A copy of the order passed in M.P. No. 268/1991 is Annexure P/7 to the petition. This Court clearly held that Scheme had lapsed and acquisition proceedings were bad-in-law for non-compliance of section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was, therefore, entitled for the release of land, however, after passing of 7 years, the respondent No. 2 IDA issued show cause notice to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner Shri Sitaram S/o. Kaluji proposing to review the order dated 20-12-1994 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter the case of the petitioner followed chequered proceedings. Respondent No. 1/State after hearing the parties reviewed its decision dated 20-12-1994 and passed an order dated 16-6-2003 Annexure P/8. This order was challenged by late Shri Sitaram in W.P. No. 1132/2003 and although this Court has set aside the order dated 16-6-2003, however, this Court left it open to the State to initiate fresh proceedings after issuing a show cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The order of the High Court is Annexure P/9 dated 18-12-2008. The order of the High Court is Annexure P/9 dated 18-12-2008. Thereafter the petitioner wrote several letters to the respondent/IDA as well as the State Government for grant of NOC regarding the release of the said land, despite such repeated requests; no answer has been given by the respondent/IDA to either the petitioner or to the predecessor Shri Sitaram. Counsel vehemently urged the fact without a formal No Objection Certificate confirming that the land stands released from Scheme No. 97 it was very difficult for the petitioners, to get further approvals for development or transfer of the land in question from the respondents/Departments. Counsel very candidly submitted that the Ring Road proposed to pass through the said land is not now so earmarked in the new master plan of 2021 of the respondent/IDA and for all practical purposes Scheme No. 97 has ceased to exist. Besides Counsel also submitted that there promissory estoppel against the respondent IDA since the assurance was given in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner had also filed a Contempt Petition bearing No. 119/12 (Annexure P/12) which is pending consideration. However, the petitioner has now learnt that the State Government on 15-9-2010 wrote a letter to the IDA regarding release of the land and for grant of compensation and Counsel urged that compensation was also not paid to the petitioners. 3. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are still in possession of their land and there was no question regarding the land vesting in the respondent No. 2 IDA. However, the State Government taking advantage of the liberty granted in W.P. No. 2732/12 to initiate fresh proceedings reviewed its order and set aside the same by impugned order dated 12-10-2012 passed by respondent State the Chief Secretary, State Government of M. P. and hence the present petition. 4. Counsel submitted that on the basis of the above, it was admitted that the action of the respondent No. 1/State for initiating of fresh proceedings was mala fide and an attempt to nothing but frustrate the present petitioner Societies. Besides notice was never given and opportunity of hearing has also been lost. The order is, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. Besides notice was never given and opportunity of hearing has also been lost. The order is, therefore, in violation of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. Counsel vehemently urged that the suo motu powers of revision by the respondent State Government have been used to abuse the process of law, that too without opportunity of hearing and hence the same be set aside and release the land in question; especially when it was not clothed with the power under section 52 of the Adhiniyam. The order also suffers from discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 12-10-2012 Annexure P/16 passed by the respondent No. 1 State be quashed and Annexure P/4 dated 20-12-1994 and Annexure P/5 dated 11-8-1995 passed by the respondents be implemented in their true spirit. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that the land was not acquired in accordance with the provisions of law. The possession still rests with the petitioners. If at all the land is required by the respondents; they should be directed to acquire the same afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law. Counsel also referred to the fact that very recently on 31-12-2014, the right to fair compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 came into force and under the new Act, the respondent State Government was precluded from acquiring the lands of the petitioners since more than 5 years have been lapsed since making of the award and compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the petitioners are still in possession of the said lands. Thus, in this situation also the land acquisition proceedings in the present case have lapsed under section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013. 5. Per contra Counsel for the State respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 have adopted the answer filed by the respondent No. 2 I.D.A. 6. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 Indore Development Authority has vehemently urged the fact that the State Government on 20-12-1994 had passed an order under section 52 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam to acquire the land required for Ring Road and release the balance of the land admeasuring 8.023 hectare and M.P. No. 550/91 filed by the petitioner Sitaram had been dismissed by this Court on 20-12-1994 as not pressed. Thereafter in several cases this Hon'ble Court on 10-12-1998 such as in M.P. No. 268/1991 petitions were allowed and against the said order Writ Appeals had been filed. Some of the writ appeals are still pending consideration and hence Counsel submitted that no advantage would accrue to the petitioner Society. A review was also suo motu initiated by the Government against the order dated 20-12-1994 before the State Government and the State Government had after hearing of the parties decided to set aside the order on 16-6-2003 and it is not as if the State Government has been lax in the matter. It has been re-evaluating the entire facts and circumstances of the case and hence the order was passed on 16-6-2003. This order was also challenged by the present petitioner in W.P. No. 1132/2003 and this Hon'ble Court had set aside the order, however, the question was left open to respondent No. 2 Indore Development Authority to initiate fresh proceedings by first issuing show cause notice to the petitioners and thereafter opportunity has appropriately being given to the petitioner. The State Government has however failed to take any action in the matter whereas in the proposed master plan of 2021; the respondent State Government had directed that an area of 1.025 hectares of the disputed land would be required for construction of ring road and the State Government directed that although the entire land may not be required but the portion required for the Ring road could be acquired. That, the respondent No. 21 D.A. submitted that an award had been passed after hearing the petitioner and thereafter the land has vested in the State Government Notice was issued to the original land owners Sitaram Kaluji on 18-12-2008 and after receipt of notice; the original land owner has not filed any objections and fresh proceedings were thus initiated by the State Government and a final order was passed on 12-10-2012 impugned as Annexure P/16. Therefore, Counsel urged that the objections raised by the petitioners are of no use. It cannot be thus said that the legal representatives of Sitaram Kaluji had no notice. Shri Badrilal s/o Sitaram had sought time to file objections/reply on 10-7-2012 and then never filed any objections, thus clearly indicating that they had given up their rights without any objections. Therefore, Counsel urged that the objections raised by the petitioners are of no use. It cannot be thus said that the legal representatives of Sitaram Kaluji had no notice. Shri Badrilal s/o Sitaram had sought time to file objections/reply on 10-7-2012 and then never filed any objections, thus clearly indicating that they had given up their rights without any objections. The State Government passed orders in consonance with the directions given by this Court in W.P. No. 1132/03. However, there has been some delay, but it cannot be said that there has been a violation under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India by the said notification. The award has been passed in accordance with section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and on this ground the petition is without merit. Counsel prayed that the petition be dismissed. 7. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently urged that the Chief Secretary by the impugned Annexure P/16 dated 12-10-2012 had correctly appreciated the facts as well as the provisions of law and had considered section 52 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam and held that Lokayukt had considered the position and held that even the State Government could not release land which had vested in it under a scheme; the land in question was already acquired by the State Government through the District Collector, Indore on 26-2-1991 according to the Land Acquisition proceedings and the said land could not be released to the owner unless it was released under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and also under section 52 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. And whereas in the present case no proceedings have been taken regarding the land of the petitioners either under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act or in terms of section 52 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. And whereas in the present case no proceedings have been taken regarding the land of the petitioners either under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act or in terms of section 52 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. Moreover it was for the respondent I.D.A. to take appropriate action once the land has vested in the Government and not for the home and Environment Department, besides the Chief Secretary also held that the IDA had always shown willingness to comply with the Court orders passed in Writ Petition No. 550/1991 and it was not for the Department of Home and Environment Department of the State Government to release any land and under the circumstances if any order had been passed by the State Government, Department of Home and Environment contrary to section 52 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam; it was null and void and the Chief Secretary had declared that the advertisement (gyap) No. 9321/32/94, dated 20-12-1994 and advertisement (gyap) No. F-6-24/32/95, dated 11-8-1995 were set aside and the Chief Secretary also held that the disputed land in the present cases was acquired land and compensation for the said land acquisition had already been awarded to the petitioners by passing of award by the Land Acquisition Officer and it was not possible to release the land which had already vested with the respondents. Moreover by the impugned order Annexure P/16 liberty was also granted to the respondent No. 2/I.D.A. to see that proper steps were taken regarding the possession. Counsel submitted that the order was in accordance with the provisions of law and the provisions of the new Act would not be attracted. 8. Counsel also urged that the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 would not be attracted in the present case because land had already vested in the Government in the year 1991 itself and although the petitioner may have physical possession; the acquisition proceeding by the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) clearly indicate that the land vested in the State Government and award was passed on 26-2-1991 for a sum of Rs. 18,62,819/-. In this light Counsel submitted that the petition must fail and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. On considering the above submissions, the record and the impugned order, I find that the following questions arise for consideration in these petitions. "1. 18,62,819/-. In this light Counsel submitted that the petition must fail and Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. On considering the above submissions, the record and the impugned order, I find that the following questions arise for consideration in these petitions. "1. Whether the land of petitioners stands released from the scheme No. 97 of the respondent No. 2/I.D.A. which has lapsed and was deemed to be released under section 52 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 could be applicable in the case of the petitioner? 3. Consequently the impugned order dated 12-10-2012 Annexure P/16 is bad-in-law and requires to be set aside." 10. Considering these facts I find that the entire question hinges whether the possession has been taken from the petitioners i.e. they have been divested of the possession and land vested in the State Govt. pursuant to the Land Acquisition proceedings, it is essential to reconsider these facts first. I find that the petitioner Societies had purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 11-7-1997 and 11-12-2000 from deceased Sitaram Kaluji who was the original Bhumi Swami. The scheme No. 97 was proposed by the respondent No. 2/IDA in the year 1991 for construction of Ring Road for public purposes. However, the validity of the scheme No. 97 and the acquisition proceedings were challenged by several Bhumi Swamis as already stated above and I find from the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 268/1991, Burhani Grah Niraman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of M. P. and others that this Court was pleased to hold thus:- "67. On account of foregoing discussions, the petitions are allowed. The Scheme is held to be illegal, inoperative and invalid. Consequently, acquisition proceedings shall also fail and Notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 and the subsequent award are hereby quashed. 68. It is clarified that this order shall be applicable only to those parties who have approached this Court and not to others. It is further clarified that this judgment shall not create a bar for the respondents to frame a fresh Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam and to acquire the lands, thereafter in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, provided, they adhere to the provisions of law." 11. It is further clarified that this judgment shall not create a bar for the respondents to frame a fresh Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam and to acquire the lands, thereafter in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, provided, they adhere to the provisions of law." 11. Thus it was clear that Writ Petition filed by the petitioners original owner Sitaram Kaluji was, however precluded from claiming that the acquisition proceedings in his case had failed since he had withdrawn the M.P. No. 550/91 on 20-12-1994. However, it is crystal clear that the Scheme No. 97 framed by the respondent No. 2/I.D.A. was quashed as illegal and inoperative. 12. Then, the moot question that would arise is, whether the land is still in the possession of the present petitioners? In this case also it must categorically observed that the present petitioners have stepped into the shoes of the original Bhumi Swamis Sitaram Kaluji and his son Bheruji since they are the owners by the registered sale deed. The land acquisition proceedings were started against the original owner Sitaram in the year October, 1987 itself and the petitioners had challenged the same in M.P. No. 550/1991. Counsel for the petitioner has already drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that in this petition, the High Court had passed stay order dated 22-3-1991 restraining the respondents IDA and State Government from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question. Thereafter at the time of withdrawal of the petition by the order dated 1-3-1996 in M.P. No. 550/91 Annexure P/6 passed by this Court, the Counsel for the respondent No. 1 IDA had given an undertaking that they would follow the directions issued by the State Government on 20-12-1994 regarding the release of the petitioners' land and also order dated 11-8-1995 Annexures P/1 and P/2 in M.P. No. 550/91 and it was only in this background that the petition was withdrawn. Therefore, the original Bhumi Swami Sitaram Kaluji had moved an application for release of his land before the State Government respondent No. 1 and under section 52 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. The State Government vide order dated 20-12-1994 had acquired only 1.025 hectare and remaining 8.023 hectare of the land was released from the Scheme No. 97 belonging to the petitioners. The State Government vide order dated 20-12-1994 had acquired only 1.025 hectare and remaining 8.023 hectare of the land was released from the Scheme No. 97 belonging to the petitioners. That, the IDA had protested against the same, however, the State Government had refused to review its order dated 20-12-1994. Unfortunately however placing reliance on the stand taken by the respondent State Government the petitioners had withdrawn W.P. No. 550/1991. However, if the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P. No. 268/1991 is considered as already stated above the Scheme itself was declared to be lapsed and the acquisition proceedings were declared to be bad-in-law. Similarly the important fact that cannot be marginalised is that there was no further action on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of petitioners in M.P. No. 550/91 and it has attained finality and the petitioners continued to be in possession of their land. Thereafter again in the matter of W.P. No. 1132/2003, the impugned order dated 16-6-2003 passed by Chief Secretary of State of M. P. also impugned in this petition has been set aside by this High Court and the present petitioners Societies were party to the petition, although the original Bhumi Swami Sitaram had died during the pendency of W.P. No. 1132/2003. Hence it is not for this Court now to question the legality of the order which has been set aside by this Court. The important fact to be considered, therefore, the petitioners has continued in possession of their land all throughout. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 I.D.A. are hereby demolished. However, that brings us to the next question whether the impugned order Annexure P/16 passed by the Chief Secretary State Government is in accordance with the provisions of law. 13. However, from the impugned order it is found that Badrilal was issued notices on several occasions and there was also paper publication in this regard and it cannot be held that the petitioners were not noticed. However, I find that order (Annexure P/16, dated 12-10-2012) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and also contrary to the provisions of law. As already held above the respondent Chief Secretary has failed to consider that the Scheme No. 97 has been declared to be illegal and consequently also lapsed. However, I find that order (Annexure P/16, dated 12-10-2012) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case and also contrary to the provisions of law. As already held above the respondent Chief Secretary has failed to consider that the Scheme No. 97 has been declared to be illegal and consequently also lapsed. Moreover there is no categoric finding regarding the petitioners having being divested of their possession regarding the disputed land; only, taking note that the land acquisition proceedings had been initiated, and award passed would not lead to the presumption that the disputed land vested with the State Government. Moreover under section 52 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam the State Government had already released the land of the petitioners and that Govt. did not have the powers under section 52 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam to do so is a preposition which is seriously disputed. Placing reliance on State of M.P. and others v. Kewal Yadav, (2004) 11 SCC 317 whereby the Apex Court directed that under sections 24 , 52 , 56 , 72 and 73 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, State Government is empowered to issue directions in exercise of power of control which have to be complied with by the authorities concerned unless the same are contrary to law or otherwise invalid and directions issued by the State Government to all authorities constituted under the Adhiniyam to abide by all orders/directions issued by it were held to be valid. The Apex Court had considered that "the High Court was of the view that since the authorities are constituted under the Act, it is not open to the State Government to issue directions under sections 52 and 73 of the Act; but the Apex Court further held "that the aforesaid provisions unmistakably show that there exists power of control with the State Government and the State Government is empowered to issue directions which have to be carried out by the authorities. It is no longer res Integra that while exercising power of control the Government can issue directions which have to be complied with by the authorities. It is no longer res Integra that while exercising power of control the Government can issue directions which have to be complied with by the authorities. It is a different thing that if any order passed by the State Government is contrary to law or otherwise invalid, in which event the same can independently be challenged in a Court of law." And hence in this light also the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of law. However, more importantly the provisions of the new Act (Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014) have been invoked by the Counsel for the petitioners. 14. I find that Clause 6 of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 reads as under:- "6. In the principal Act, in section 24, in Sub-section (2), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this subsection, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any Court or the period specified in the award of a Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a Court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded." And in this regard also the amendment would have retrospective effect and after passing of the award on 26-2-1991 till date there were two periods from 1-3-1996 to 16-6-2003 (7 years 3 months) and from 18-12-2008 to 12-10-2012 (3 years 9 months) when there was no stay or injunction by any Court because of which the proceedings of acquisition of the land were held up. 15. Considering the case Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, AIR 2014 SC 982 to state that when the subject land acquisition proceedings had lapsed and compensation was deposited in the government treasury, it would not be equivalent to compensation paid to land owners or interested persons and the Apex Court had held that under section 24(2), land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award is made 5 years or more prior to commencement of 2013 Act and possession of land has not been taken or compensation not paid. And in instant case, since compensation was not paid to petitioners and the award had been made more than 5 years previously, the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed of General Clauses Act, 1897 and under Clause 6 of the Ordinance of 2014. Besides the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 being an expropriatory legislation should be strictly followed and Collector while making payment of compensation, can only act in manner so provided, since where power is given to do certain thing in certain way, it should be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden under sections 31 to 34, 11 and 12 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16. Considering the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 10 SCALE 388 whereby the Court held thus: ".....13. From the discussions made above, it is amply clear that though there is lack of clarity on the issue whether compensation has been paid for majority of land holdings under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that physical possession of the lands belonging to the appellants under consideration in these appeals has not been taken by the State or any other authority on its behalf and more than five years have elapsed since the making of the award dated 30-11-2006 and 1-1-2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. It goes without saying that the Government of Tamil Nadu shall be free, if it so chooses to initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs." Considering the above submissions, I find that section 24 of the New Act (Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014) would thus be attracted and in this light the impugned order Annexure P/16 needs to be set aside, since it has already been held above that the petitioners were never dispossessed and contend to be in possession of property even today. The petition is hereby allowed and in the light of section 24 of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 which has already been quoted above. It is therefore, directed that land acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question situated at Village Hukmakhedi, Teh. and Distt. Indore bearing Survey Nos. 58 and 59 admeasuring 5.337 Hectares have lapsed and respondent Indore Development Authority is directed to consider the application regarding issuance No Objection Certificate confirming release of the land from Scheme No. 97 of Indore Development Authority. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petitions are allowed to the extent hereinabove indicated. Original order be retained in the record of W.P. No. 10951/2012 and a record thereof be placed in the record of W.P. No. 10958/12. CC as per rules.