JUDGMENT : V.M. Sahai, Actg. C.J. 1. We have heard Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vandan Baxi, learned A.G.P. for the respondents. A short question of law that arises in this writ petition is whether after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1-1-2014 Notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be issued. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners are landholders/farmers of Survey No. 14 paikee 1 admeasuring 5 Acres, 35 Are and 28 square metres situated in village Khakhariya, Taluka-Savli, District-Vadodara. The said land has come in the name of the petitioners from their ancestors. All the petitioners are co-owners of the aforesaid land. Earlier, the respondents sought to acquire the land of the petitioners for construction of State Highway by issuing notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 6-9-2012. Thereafter, no proceedings were undertaken by the respondents under the provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 1-1-2014. 3. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 18-3-2014 issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent No. 2. The writ petition was thereafter amended as notification was issued under Sec. 6 also of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and consequently, the notification issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Annexure-D to the petition) is also challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. 4. The challenge of the petitioners is that once Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force, no notification under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be issued. 5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondents. Supplementary affidavit was also filed by the respondent pursuant to amendment of the petition. The respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit-in-reply, wherein, in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, it is stated as under: "4. I say and submit that land admeasuring 2-47-34 sq.mtrs of village Khakharia, Tal. Savli, Dist. 5. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondents. Supplementary affidavit was also filed by the respondent pursuant to amendment of the petition. The respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit-in-reply, wherein, in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, it is stated as under: "4. I say and submit that land admeasuring 2-47-34 sq.mtrs of village Khakharia, Tal. Savli, Dist. Vadodara sought to be acquired for construction of State Highway. I say that the Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was issued on 27-8-2012 and the same was published in Government Gazette on 6-9-2012. However, after publication of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act in Government Gazette, objection was raised by the petitioner stating that there are discrepancy in the notification issued under Sec. 4 of the Act. On verification, it came to the notice of the authorities that the objections raised by corrected Notification dated 7-3-2014 under Sec. 4 of the Act was issued on 7-3-2014 and the same was published in Government Gazette on 20-3-2014. 5. I say that thereafter, the objections under Sec. 5A of the Act were invited from the concerned land-owners, whereby the petitioner herein raised objection. However, the same was not considered as it was submitted beyond the period of one month. Thereafter, the notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued on 21-4-2014, which came to be published in Government Gazette on 24-4-2014. 6. I say that the contention raised by the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for the land in question would lapse in view of the new Act is misconceived. I say that the corrected Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act dated 20-3-2014 was issued in continuation of Notification dated 6-9-2012, and therefore, the Notification dated 24-4-2014 issued under Sec.6 of the Act was well within the limitation of one year from the issuance of Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. 7. I say that the notices under Secs. 9(1) and (2) of the Act have been issued to the respective land-owners. I say that as per Sec.24 of the new Act, it is stated that, "where no award under Sec. 11of the said land acquisition act has been made, then all provisions of this act relating the determination of compensation shall apply". 9(1) and (2) of the Act have been issued to the respective land-owners. I say that as per Sec.24 of the new Act, it is stated that, "where no award under Sec. 11of the said land acquisition act has been made, then all provisions of this act relating the determination of compensation shall apply". I say that in the instant case also, the compensation payable to the respective land-owners will be paid as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings does not deserve to be entertained." 6. Contents of the said Paragraphs of the affidavit have been controverted by the petitioners by filing rejoinder. 7. From the perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 1-Collector, Vadodara, it is stated therein that the State Government could issue notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and pay compensation to the petitioners under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 1 is against the statutory provisions and the effect given to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent No. 1 is totally illegal. After the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed w.e.f. 1-1-2014, no notification should be issued by the Collector or the State Government. Though, the Collector has issued notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 and notice under Secs. 9(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and thereby, he has violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Sec. 300Aof the Constitution of India because right to property is a constitutional right and human right. The petitioners' constitutional right has been violated by the respondent No. 1-Collector, Vadodara. Further, no notification after 1-1-2014 could be issued either by the State Government or by the Collector, Vadodara under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings which include the Notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deserve to be quashed. 8. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Further, no notification after 1-1-2014 could be issued either by the State Government or by the Collector, Vadodara under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings which include the Notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deserve to be quashed. 8. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Notification dated 18-3-2014 issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Notification dated 21-4-2014 issued under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the respondent No. 1-Collector, Vadodara are hereby quashed. We direct the respondent No. 1 not to interfere in any manner with the property of the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without there being any acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 9. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.