JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The following issue is to be determined in the present writ petition :- (a) Whether under Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 a proceeding arising out of L.A case under 1894 Act (I) could be declared as lapsed when no possession has been taken by the requiring body after the award? 2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is as follows : That the petitioner no.1 is an educational institution running under the name and style of Holy Home and it is represented by its Rector and Secretary being the petitioner no.2 herein. The subject matter of the land involved in this proceeding is the R.S. Plot No.3702, corresponding to L.R. Plot No.502 under L.R. Khatian no.26989 measuring 0.350 acres equivalent to 1 bigha 4 kathas which is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner school. The petitioners purchased the said land only for the purpose of constructing sport complex for the girls’ students of the school. It is also submitted that the petitioner no.2 is also the Chairperson to the Trustee Board and that in the records of rights under provision of the West Bengal land Reforms Act, 1955 it was shown school is occupying the said land and the petitioner no.2 has been described as rayat of the said land. As a result thereof the petitioner no.2 was served with a notice dated 21st December, 2010 from the office of the Land Acquisition Controller under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the intimation that the land of the petitioners had been acquired for the purpose of the construction of girls’ hostel under Act I of 1894 without mentioning the name of the requiring body for such requisition therein. Only after receiving such notice under Section 9 petitioner no.2 came to know that already there was a declaration under Section 6 of the Act I of 1894 which was published in Ganashakti newspaper on 12th December, 2010. It is also submitted that notice under Section 4 of the said Act I894 was published in the newspaper namely Times of India on 19th December, 2009 without disclosing the name of the requiring body in the said notice. It is also submitted that notice under Section 4 of the said Act I894 was published in the newspaper namely Times of India on 19th December, 2009 without disclosing the name of the requiring body in the said notice. It is further submitted that the acquisition was made under Act I of 1894 in the garb of public purpose i.e. construction of girls’ hostel/community development centre/principal and staff quarters which according to the petitioners are not the similar purpose of acquisition. It is also the case of the petitioners that there was no whisper either in the notice under Section 4 as has been published in Times of India dated 19th December, 2009 or in the notice under Section 6 published in Ganashakti dated 8th December, 2010 as to the name of the body which was required the land for acquisition. Therefore in no circumstances the requiring body for girls’ hostel would the same as that of the requiring body of the community development and/or principal and staff quarters. Therefore it was the case of the petitioners that the entire action on the part of the respondent authorities to acquire the land is wholly violative of the procedures laid down in G.O dated 6th June, 2006. Challenging, the said L.A proceedings arising out of L.A case No. 2179/LA/IE-04/09 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 and also the G.O dated 8th December, 2010 issued on behalf of the respondent no.2, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for cancellation of the said LA case arising out of Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file objection under Section 5 of the said Act and further there was no mentioning of the land acquisition proceedings number and the name of the requiring body who requires the land. Submissions of the Learned Advocates 3. Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly argued that without obtaining any approval from the Government for acquisition of the land by a proper requiring body for any public purpose, the notification and declaration in the said case were not made in accordance with mandatory provisions of memo being bi.1701 ad 1702 both dated 6th June, 2006. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Mukherjee also vehemently urged that though the award was made sometime in January, 2011 but no formal possession has been taken either by the petitioners or by Balika Bayan Vidyalaya. 5. Mr. Mukherjee also referred to Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is quoted below :- “Section-24-Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases-(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made give 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 ad 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.” 6. Strongly relying upon Section 24 (2) quoted above, Mr. Mukherjee argued that though award was passed sometime in January, 2011 still no possession has been taken by the requiring body although five years have passed from the date of award then the said acquisition proceedings under Act I of 1894 shall be treated as lapsed. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee argued that though award was passed sometime in January, 2011 still no possession has been taken by the requiring body although five years have passed from the date of award then the said acquisition proceedings under Act I of 1894 shall be treated as lapsed. In support of his contention Mr. Mukherjee relied on a Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in 2015 (3) SCC Page-353 Paragraphs11-15 (Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs State of Tamil Nadu And Others) Para-15 is quoted below :- “Para-15-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 landholdings under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that physical possession of the lands belonging to the appellants under consideration in these appeals have 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 n 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 the 2013 Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.” Mr. Mukherjee also relied on another Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in (2014) 3 SCC Page-183 Paragraph-21 (Pune Municipal Corporation And Another vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki And Others) which is quoted below :- “Para-21-The argument on behalf of the Corporation that the subject land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in all respects under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected at all in view of Section 114 (2) of the 2013 Act. Has no merit at all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114 (1) of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act. Has no merit at all, and is noted to be rejected. Section 114 (1) of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 114, however, makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24 (2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under Section 24 (2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being subject to Section 24 (2), there is no merit in the contention of the Corporation.” 7. Mr. Mukherjee also drew my attention to Rule 8 of the West Bengal land Acquisition Manual 1991 which reads as follows : Rule-8-Screening Committee- (1) With a view to restricting acquisition of land to the minimum necessity for a project it has been decided by Government that a Screening Committee should be constituted by the Collector with the following officials and non-officials to examine the proposals for acquisition of land exceeding 5 (five) acres for various projects of Government both State and Central/Local Bodies/Public Undertakings/Companies etc in the districts. (i) Additional District Magistrate-in-Charge of Land Acquisition; (ii) Concerned Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer; (iii) The Sabhapati of the Panchayet Samity of the concerned are or his representative; (iv) The Local member of Legislative Assembly or his representative; (v) The representative of the Requiring Body; (vi) The Special Land Acquisition officer. Concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer will act as the Convenor of the said committee. (2) The site proposed by the Requiring Body may be scrutinized by the Committee before a final selection is made. While selecting a site every effort should be made to avoid acquisition of valuable agricultural land or ecologically fragile land. The objective will be to strike a balance between the public purpose and the rights of the individual. (3) In case of acquisition of land under Act I of 1894 the Collector may initiate the proposal on the recommendation of the Screening committee and forward the draft notification etc. The objective will be to strike a balance between the public purpose and the rights of the individual. (3) In case of acquisition of land under Act I of 1894 the Collector may initiate the proposal on the recommendation of the Screening committee and forward the draft notification etc. to the Land and Land Reforms Department for further action.” 8. Mr. Mukherjee emphasized that the respondent authority failed to comply with Rule 8 of the West Bengal Acquisition Manual 1991 thereby furnishing copies of substance of the notification to the petitioners as they are interested persons in the said land to be acquired. 9. Mr. Mukherjee also vehemently contended that it is revealed from the notification dated 14th May, 2007 that Joint Secretary Land and Land Reforms Department directed the collectors that the Governor has been pleased to decide that henceforth all L.A proceedings shall be started by issuing notification under Section 4 of the L.A Act of 1894 in the form prescribed in L.A Manual 1991. Therefore, all the L.A collectors were advised by the Joint Secretary to use the form as prescribed in L.A Manual, 1991 instead of using Land Acquisition Act new approaching form. 10. Before parting with his argument Mr. Mukherjee reiterated in his submission that as per Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the entire proceeding shall be treated as lapsed as no possession has been handed over to the requiring body after passing award. 11. Per contra, Mr. Ayan Banerjee learned Advocate appearing for the State authority vehemently urged that the Principal, Government College of Engineering and Textile Technology Serampore, the requiring body, submitted a proposal on 22nd October, 2009 before the respondent no.3 for acquisition of 0.463 acres of land in R.S. Plot No.3702 of mouza Serampore under P.S. Serampore, District-Hooghly for the project titled as construction of girls’ hostel, community development centre and principal and staff quarters. 12. Mr. Banerjee further contended that said plot was only classified as ‘School’ and there was no indication regarding ‘Balika Bayan Vidyalaya’ in the C.S record and also in the present L.R record. It is also revealed that the school was started before independence and happens to be the women section of Textile College, Serampore. 12. Mr. Banerjee further contended that said plot was only classified as ‘School’ and there was no indication regarding ‘Balika Bayan Vidyalaya’ in the C.S record and also in the present L.R record. It is also revealed that the school was started before independence and happens to be the women section of Textile College, Serampore. It is also submitted that Smt. Indrani Mukherjee being the petitioner no.2 purchased the plot of the said school premises with dilapidated structure from one Sri Prasun Kumar Goswami under registered conveyances. It is also learnt that after receipt of proposal from the requiring body L.A Case being no. IV-7/2009-2010 was initiated under the provision of L.A. Act I of 1894 and compliance of Section 4 (1), 6, 5(A) of the Act was made. It is also revealed that to proceed further notices under Section 9 (3) and 9 (4) of the said Act have been duly served upon all the interested persons/landowners for hearing on 4th January, 2011 and on the same day under Section 11 of the said Act award enquiry was duly made and thereafter, award has been declared for payment. 12. It is evident that till date under Section 16 of the said Land Acquisition Act I 1894 no possession has been taken by the collector pursuant to the said award. Decision with Reasons 13. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after considering the Sections referred above and also the judgment cited above this Court is convinced that no possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act I, 1894 has been taken by the collector pursuant to the award dated 4th January, 2011. Since no physical possession of the land has been taken after the award dated 14th January, 2011 therefore, under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 squarely applies in the case and the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. 14. In the light of the discussions above I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned proceedings being L.A Case No.2179/LA/IE-04/09 Notification Hooghly No.361/LA/IV-7/2009-10 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and also G.O dated 8th December, 2010 issued on behalf of the respondent no.1 being the appropriate Government in connection with the declaration no. JS-2179/LA/IE-04/09 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act I, 1894 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. JS-2179/LA/IE-04/09 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act I, 1894 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the proceedings arising out of L.A Case No. 2179/LA/IE-04/09 Notification Hooghly No.361/LA/IV-7/2009-10 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 and also G.O dated 8th December, 2010 issued on behalf of the respondent no.1 being the appropriate Government in connection with the declaration no. JS-2179/LA/IE-04/09 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act I, 1894 are hereby quashed and set aside. But this order will not preclude the Government to initiate appropriate proceedings of land acquisition afresh in accordance with law. 15. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed however no order as to costs.