ORDER : The petitioners’ grievance is that the compensation is not being given to them as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that 387 houses/structures/plots in Anapakatti village are acquired for rehabilitating the persons being affected by the submergence under the backwater of Narayanpur Reservoir, vide preliminary notification, dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure-A) and the final notification, dated 06.06.2012. The sixth respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned common award on 31.12.2013 (Annexure-B) determining the compensation in respect of 68 houses/structures/plots; however no award came to be passed in respect of the remaining 319 houses/structures/plots. The determination of the compensation in the common award in respect of the 68 persons is following the principles prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the similarly placed landlosers in respect of whom the award was passed on 19.12.2013 under the provisions of the old Act (Land Acquisition Act, 1894) approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos.107720-27/2014 agitating their claim to receive the compensation, which would be granted to the remaining persons in respect of whom no award was passed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said petitions by his order, dated 25.08.2014 with the liberty to the parties in the said petitions to avail of the remedy provided under Sections 18 and 28A of the old Act. The Division Bench on examining the proviso to Section 24(2) of the new Act allowed the writ appeals by setting aside the learned Single Judge’s order and by directing the respondents to pay the compensation in terms of the proviso to Section 24 of the new Act. 4. He submits that the petitioners have just received the award notice under Section 12(2) and not received the compensation amount. 5. Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is in no position to dispute the applicability of the Division Bench’s judgment, dated 23.03.2015 passed in W.A. Nos.100864-866/2014 and W.A. Nos.100063-67/2015. 6. Section 24 of the New Act reads as follows: “24. 5. Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is in no position to dispute the applicability of the Division Bench’s judgment, dated 23.03.2015 passed in W.A. Nos.100864-866/2014 and W.A. Nos.100063-67/2015. 6. Section 24 of the New Act reads as follows: “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.” 7. The proviso to Section 24(2) has full application for the facts of the case on hand. It is not in dispute that out of 387 properties, the awards themselves are not passed in respect of 319 properties. When the award itself is not passed, the question of depositing the amounts in the accounts of the land-losers does not arise. Out of 387 properties, the awards are passed only in respect of 68 properties and even in respect of those 68 properties, the amounts are not disbursed to their owners/claimants. 8. When the award itself is not passed, the question of depositing the amounts in the accounts of the land-losers does not arise. Out of 387 properties, the awards are passed only in respect of 68 properties and even in respect of those 68 properties, the amounts are not disbursed to their owners/claimants. 8. In an almost identical case, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.100864-866/2014 and W.A. Nos.100063-67/2015 has this to say in para 15: “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. 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.” 9. 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.” 9. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust and Another vs. Vittal Rao and Others reported in AIR 1973 SC 689 , it does not matter to the landowner whether the land is acquired under the Act ‘A’ or Act ‘B’ or for public purpose ‘A’ or public purpose ‘B’. The similarly placed land owners are entitled to equal protection of law. It is not permissible to give lower compensation to the petitioners on the ground that the awards in their cases are passed on 31.12.2013 and to give higher compensation to those in whose cases the awards are passed after 31.12.2013, even when their lands are contiguous, acquired for the same purpose and covered under the same notification. By passing the partial awards in respect of 68 properties and not passing the awards in respect of 319 properties, the former category of owners cannot be put to prejudice. I do not find any reasonable or intelligible basis as to why the awards are passed in respect of 68 persons choosing them to receive the lower compensation under the old Act and deferring the passing of the awards in respect of 319 properties, whose owners would be entitled to receive the higher compensation under the new Act. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow these writ petitions, quash the impugned awards and direct the respondents to pass the fresh award following the provisions of the new Act – the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.