JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. All these writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment as the issue involved in them is the same and the relief prayed for also is same and similar. 2. By way of these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed for quashing of orders passed by Collector, Palampur, District Kangra dated 28.05.2007, 18.06.2007 & 16.11.2010 vide which, Collector Palampur dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act for possession of land by dispossessing the private respondents from the same. As prayed for by learned counsel for the parties jointly, CWP No. 85 of 2008 has been treated as the lead case. For convenience, case property and details of land qua possession of which applications were filed before learned Collector under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, out of which these petitions have arisen, are given hereinbelow: Case No. Date of Institution Date of decision Details of property CWP No. 85 of 2008 19.04.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 15, Khasra Nos. 222, measuring 0-00-54 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 83 of 2008 27.02.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 21, Khasra Nos. 255, 256 and 258, Kita 3, land measuring 0-07-13 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 86 of 2008 27.02.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 17, Khasra Nos. 221,226,227,229 & 231, Kita 5, measuring 0-27-28 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 87 of 2008 06.04.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 8 min, Kita 5, measuring 0-25-62 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 88 of 2008 27.02.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 14, Khasra Nos. 261, 262 & 264, Kita-3, measuring 0-27-27 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 89 of 2008 27.02.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 22, Khasra Nos. 254, 257, 259, 260 and 263, Kita 5, land measuring 0-11-23 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 90 of 2008 27.02.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 19, Khasra Nos. 254, 257, 259, 260 and 263, Kita 5, land measuring 0-11-23 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 90 of 2008 27.02.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 19, Khasra Nos. 247, measuring 0-04-16 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 91 of 2008 15.03.1999 28.05.2007 Khata No. 7 min, Khatoni No. 20, Khasra Nos. 245, 249 & 252, Kita 3, measuring 0-76-37 hectares, situated at Mohal Holta, Mouja Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 94 of 2008 18.06.2007 Khata No. 8 min, Khatoni No. 21, Khasra No. 379 & 380, measuring 0-12-36 hectares, situated in Mohal HOlta, Mouza Holta, Tehsil Palampur, Distriat Kangra, H.P. CWP No. 9214 of 2011 23.06.2003 16.11.2010 Khata/Khatoni No. 8 min/12 min, Khasra No. 244 and 248, Kita 2 measuring 0-47-47 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mouza Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 3. In addition to the prayer made in the writ petitions for quashing of orders passed by Collector, Palampur in the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to deliver actual possession of the property subject matter of the petitions by dispossessing the private respondents from the same. 4. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present cases are as under: 5. A notification was issued by the Government of Punjab under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of 12,396 Kanals and 1 Marla of land in Tika and Mauza Mahal Banuri, Tika and Mauza Mahal Holta, Tika Bharmat Upperli and Jhalred, Mouza Banuri, Tehsil Palampur on 04.01.1966 for public purposes for setting up of a National Biological Research Institute at Palampur. This notification culminated into an award dated 8th July, 1966, which award was made by Shri Dalip Singh, I.C.S. Revenue Assistant Kangra at Dharmshala exercising the powers of Collector for Kangra District under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring land for setting up of National Biological Research Institute at Palampur, District Kangra. This notification culminated into an award dated 8th July, 1966, which award was made by Shri Dalip Singh, I.C.S. Revenue Assistant Kangra at Dharmshala exercising the powers of Collector for Kangra District under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquiring land for setting up of National Biological Research Institute at Palampur, District Kangra. According to the petitioners, predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents had submitted their respective claims under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and pursuant to the Notification of award dated 08.07.1966, a sum of Rs.21 lac was deposited as compensation amount with the Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra vide cheque No. 986659/009867 dated 08.07.1966 by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Palampur for the purpose of setting up of a National Biological Research Institute, Palampur. Land presently in occupation of the private respondents situated at Mohal Holta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra was part of Holta Tea Estate, which was acquired by means of the above mentioned award, compensation qua which was duly deposited by the petitioners. After re-organization of the State of Punjab, Kangra District was added to the State of Himachal Pradesh and compensation awarded to the owners and occupants of the part of land acquired by Revenue Assistant, Land Acquisition Collector, Kangra was duly deposited in treasury and all the owners and occupants received payments of their respective shares, where after all rights, title and interest which they were having in the Holta Tea Estate regarding the land in issue stood extinguished. As per the petitioners, payments were received by all the predecessors-in interest of the private respondents. As per the petitioners, scheme for establishing National Biological Research Institute was later on dropped and thereafter in the year 1978, part of the property was temporarily handed over to Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu, another constituent unit of CSIR for its research work etc. and the Laboratory was using only a part of the property acquired vide award dated 08.07.1966. As the petitioners wanted to establish a Laboratory with wider objectives and research programmes, accordingly in place of National Biological Research Institute, it established CSIR Complex at Palampur in the year 1983, which was subsequently renamed as Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology (IHBT), Palampur. and the Laboratory was using only a part of the property acquired vide award dated 08.07.1966. As the petitioners wanted to establish a Laboratory with wider objectives and research programmes, accordingly in place of National Biological Research Institute, it established CSIR Complex at Palampur in the year 1983, which was subsequently renamed as Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology (IHBT), Palampur. According to the petitioners, private respondents were verbally instructed to vacate the land, actual physical possession of which had not been taken from the said private respondents in respect of houses, though actual possession of entire agricultural land both from the owners and occupants stood delivered to CSIR to the extent of 186.2 acres. Further, as per the petitioners, portions of acquired land were given by State of Himachal Pradesh to different bodies including Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya. As per the petitioners, as the private respondents did not vacate the land which was in their actual possession despite their having assured the petitioners to do so, petitioners instituted Civil Suits against them in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Palampur. The suits so filed by the petitioners were ordered to be returned to the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Palampur as, the Court of learned Sub Judge concluded that the said Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. Thereafter, petitioners filed applications under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act before Sub Divisional Collector, Palampur exercising the powers of Collector under the Land Acquisition Act for possession of land which was occupied by the private respondents by demolition of structures, if any, on the same. The applications so filed by the petitioners were rejected vide impugned orders including order dated 28.05.2007 passed by the Court of Collector, Palampur, District Kangra by holding as under: “From the above discussion, and perusal of the arguments put forth by the Counsel for the parties and record so placed on the file, the Court has come to the conclusion that the application has been moved by the party/applicant for taking over the possession after a long time of more than 30 years. The applicant was asked to produce evidence with regard to the actual possession by the defendant at the time of handing over the said possession of the ground as per letter and spirit of Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, but in spite of giving of many opportunities to do so, the applicant failed to do so. No credible evidence whatsoever oral or written has been placed on record which can support their claim. It is therefore, clear that until and unless the defendants takes possession of the land after the acquisition, no title possess to it. In such a case, the person in possession can validly claim possessor title as against the title. It was for the applicant to take over the actual possession at the time of handing over of possession by the acquiring authority and in case had their been some resistance to do, it would have been appropriate for the applicant party to move under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act to obtain the actual possession on the ground at that point of time. Since that remedy has not been availed by the party at that point of time, therefore, this application is not maintainable under Section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, now and hence dismissed. File be consigned to the general Record room after the completion.” 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders passed by Collector, Palampur, District Kangra vide which, the said authority has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 7. Reply to the petition has been filed by the State and the replies filed by private respondents have been adopted by those private respondents who have not filed their independent replies to the petition. 8. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the impugned orders passed by Collector, Palampur were not sustainable in law because while passing the impugned orders, Collector, Palampur failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and he erred in holding that the property in issue was not vested in the petitioners and the application for possession was not maintainable after a lapse of more than 30 years. According to Mr. According to Mr. Sood, the record of the land acquisition proceedings demonstrated that actual physical possession of substantial portion of the property had been taken over by the petitioners and they had also set up Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur on the said property and had further developed the land for research and development purposes as well as for socio-economic development of regional community through sustainable utilization of natural resources with special emphasis on tea, floriculture, bamboo, medicinal plants and aromatic crops. On these basis, it was argued by Mr. Sood that the inference drawn by the Collector to the effect that the possession of the acquired land had not been taken by the petitioners was totally unjustifiable. According to Mr. Sood, because actual possession of part of the property was not taken, the same was totally immaterial and the structures being occupied by the private respondents were liable to be demolished and actual possession of the property was liable to be delivered to the petitioners. According to Mr. Sood, the impugned orders besides being non-speaking and cryptic were otherwise also liable to be set aside because while passing the said orders, not only the Collector lost sight of the fact that it was his statutory duty to carry out the responsibilities enshrined upon him under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but even otherwise whatever little reasoning that could be made out from the said order demonstrated that the orders were perverse and erroneous. Mr. Sood argued that the Collector below dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners without appreciating that it was not the case of the petitioners that they were not occupying the land. Mr. Sood further contended that the findings returned by Collector to the effect that “until and unless the defendant takes possession of the land after acquisition, no title passes to it” was totally out of context because this was neither the issue involved in the case nor it was clear from the impugned order as to what the authority intended to convey by returning the said findings. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Sood that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioners be granted reliefs as prayed for. 9. Mr. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Sood that the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioners be granted reliefs as prayed for. 9. Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the orders passed by Collector and argued that the Collector rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act for want of evidence on the factum of taking over of the possession of the land referred to in the applications. It was further submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that it was for the petitioners to take over the actual possession of the land in issue at the time of handing over of the possession by the acquiring authority and because in the present case petitioners had failed to take the actual possession of the land at that point of time, the applications filed in this regard under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act were not maintainable and were rightly dismissed. 10. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents alongwith Mr. N.K. Sood and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel argued that neither there was any infirmity with the orders passed by Collector dismissing the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act nor was there any merit in the present petitions and the same also deserved dismissal. It was argued by Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel that as far as the factual matrix of the case was concerned, there was no dispute. The factum of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the factum of the award having been announced on 08.07.1966 was not disputed by learned Senior Counsel. Mr. Verma submitted that the payment of compensation to the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents out of the award money as well as the private respondents being in occupation of the land subject matter of acquisition award dated 08.07.1966 was an admitted position. According to Mr. Mr. Verma submitted that the payment of compensation to the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents out of the award money as well as the private respondents being in occupation of the land subject matter of acquisition award dated 08.07.1966 was an admitted position. According to Mr. Verma, the award which was passed as far back as in the year 1966 had in fact become un-executable and keeping in view the fact that despite the land having been acquired vide award dated 08.07.1966, the actual possession of the same remained initially with the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents and thereafter with them, the petitioners had now no legal right to claim possession of the said land from the private respondents. It was further argued by Mr. Verma that the judgments passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Palampur dismissing the suit for possession filed by the petitioners and returning their plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had attained finality. According to Mr. Verma, the remedy available to the petitioners at that stage was to have had challenged the said judgments passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Palampur rather than filing applications under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector at a belated stage. It was further argued by Mr. Verma that there was neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the order that was passed by the Collector dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Verma argued that neither the said orders were non speaking nor were they cryptic. According to Mr. Verma, learned Collector rightly dismissed the said applications by holding that the petitioners had no right to move such application at such a belated stage. It was further argued by Mr. Verma that keeping in view the fact that award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer had the force of decree and there was no specific provision for execution of the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, then it was incumbent for the petitioners to have had got the said award executed within a period of three years. Mr. Verma further submitted that since the possession of the land in issue was never actually taken over by the petitioners, ownership rights never vested in them. 11. Mr. Mr. Verma further submitted that since the possession of the land in issue was never actually taken over by the petitioners, ownership rights never vested in them. 11. Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel while adopting the arguments of Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, supplemented Mr. Verma by arguing that even otherwise in view of subsequent events, the petitions had been rendered infructuous. Mr. N.K. Sood submitted that it was an admitted case of the parties that despite the fact that the land subject matter of the present writ petitions was acquired by way of an award which was passed as far back as in the year 1966, the actual possession of the property which is being occupied by the private respondents was never taken by the petitioners from them. In this factual matrix, it was submitted by Mr. N.K. Sood that in view of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) which had come in force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, the petitions had been rendered infructuous. Mr. Sood placed reliance upon Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act and argued that the said statutory provision explicitly provided by way of non-obstante clause that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act but physical possession of the land had not been taken or the compensation had 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 2013 Act. On these basis, it was submitted by Mr. Sood that the present petitions had in fact been rendered in fructuous and in case the petitioners were interested in the possession of the land which was in the occupation of the private respondents, then they will have to resort to the procedure prescribed in 2013 Act, which contemplated that the appropriate Government shall have to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act for acquisition of the land in issue. 12. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel while adopting the arguments of Mr. G.D. Verma and Mr. 12. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel while adopting the arguments of Mr. G.D. Verma and Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior counsel also argued that neither there was any infirmity with the orders passed by Collector, Palampur nor in view of subsequent development petitions in fact survived. Accordingly, it was submitted on behalf of the private respondents that the petitions be dismissed. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 14. The grievance which has been raised by the petitioners by way of present writ petitions inter alia is the rejection of the applications filed by them under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Collector, Palampur. Applications were filed by the petitioners before Collector, Palampur praying therein that the land which stood acquired as far back as in the year 1966 and which was still in the occupation of the private respondents be got vacated from the said private respondents and be handed over to the petitioners. The applications so filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by Collector, Palampur vide orders dated 28.05.2007, 18.06.2007 & 16.11.2010, which orders have been assailed in all these petitions by the petitioners. 15. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provided as under: “16. Power to take possession. When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. 16. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, once the Collector made an award under Section 11 thereof, then he could take possession of the land and two consequences follow from this taking of possession, namely: (i) Vesting of the land absolutely in the Government. (ii) Such vesting is free from all encumbrances. 17. It is not disputed that until possession is taken by the Collector, the owner’s title is not disturbed and there is no vesting of title in the Government notwithstanding that there has been an award. Where the property is in actual possession of a trespasser but in the legal possession of the true owner and the latter delivers possession, then such delivery will obviously be symbolic delivery of possession. Symbolic delivery of possession will be as effective as actual delivery for the purpose of Section 16 of the Act. Where the property is in actual possession of a trespasser but in the legal possession of the true owner and the latter delivers possession, then such delivery will obviously be symbolic delivery of possession. Symbolic delivery of possession will be as effective as actual delivery for the purpose of Section 16 of the Act. Once the Land Acquisition Officer has taken symbolic delivery of possession, the State acquires along with it the right to evict the trespassers. It is settled law that taking of possession under Section 16 becomes complete as soon as the possession which the owner was capable of delivering was taken. It is not the spirit of Section 16 that Collector personally has to go to the land to proclaim that he has taken possession. It is enough that he authorizes someone in this regard. 18. A perusal of the averments made in the application which was filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act demonstrate that it was pleaded therein that after acquisition of land in issue by way of issuance of award, the compensation stood deposited by the petitioners and the same was given to the predecessors-in-interest of all the private respondents. It was mentioned therein that since the land in issue stood acquired and compensation stood paid, private respondents had no right to occupy the same and possession of the said land be taken from the said respondents by the Collector and the same be handed over to the applicant. 19. In the reply filed to the said application, the stand of the private respondents was that the factum of the land in issue having been acquired by way of an award was denied for want of knowledge and the factum of the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents having received compensation in lieu of said acquisition was also denied for want of knowledge. The application was resisted on the grounds of limitation and mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. 20. The application was resisted on the grounds of limitation and mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. 20. A perusal of the orders passed by Collector demonstrates that the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act were dismissed primarily on the ground that besides being belated the petitioners were asked to produce evidence with regard to actual possession of the defendant, but in spite of many opportunities having been granted to the petitioners in this regard, no credible evidence was placed on record by the petitioners in support of their claim. 21. Be that as it may, it is evident from the facts of the present petitions that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in fact passed on 08.07.1966 in respect of the land which is in possession of the private respondents and thus it is an undisputed fact that the award in issue was passed five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land/houses/structures which are in occupation of the private respondents has not been taken over by the respondents. In fact, this factual position cannot be agitated by the petitioners whose edifice of filing the applications under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector was that despite their being an award passed in their favour by the Collector and the compensation having been received by the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents, possession thereof had not been vacated by the private respondents. Eight of these writ petitions were filed in the year 2008 and one writ petition was filed in the year 2011. 22. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Parliament enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Section 24 of the said Act provides as under: “24. 22. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Parliament enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Section 24 of the said Act provides 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 (1 of 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 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 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.” 23. On the basis of the provisions in Sub-section (2) of Section 24, it was argued on behalf of the private respondents that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 culminating into award dated 08.07.1966 as far as they pertain to the land presently in possession of the private respondents are deemed to have lapsed and if the appropriate Government so chooses, it may initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. 24. 24. Undoubtedly, Sub-section (2) of Section 24 expressly provides with a non-obstante clause that where an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act but physical possession of the land has not been taken, then the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Act shall be deemed to have lapsed and appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. The factum of the award in issue having been made more than five years prior to coming into force of 2013 Act is not in dispute. Therefore, in my considered view, by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 24, the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 culminating in award dated 08.07.1966 as far as the said award relates to the land which is still in physical possession of the present private respondents have lapsed by application of law, as one of the conditions in the said provisions is fulfilled in the present case. 25. In fact, this legal position is no more res integra and it has been settled in many pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in cases where factual position was akin to the facts of the present cases, i.e. where award had been passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 more than 5 years prior to the coming into force of 2013 Act and possession of the land acquired had not been taken over. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Velaxan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others (2015) 4 SCC 325 has held : “14. We have carefully examined the application filed by the appellant seeking for the beneficial provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and the objections filed by the respondents to the same. After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the award passed under Section 11 was passed on 03.04.2002 in respect of the disputed land of village-pansali, therefore, it is an undisputed fact that it was passed 5 years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 and the compensation for the acquisition of the appellant’s land has not been paid to the appellant. Further, with respect to taking over of possession of the land by the respondents, it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that actual physical possession of the land in question has not been taken by the respondents. Even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted that possession of the land was taken by the respondents, it is clear that due procedure has not been followed by the Acquisition Authority by way of preparing proper ‘Panchnama’ in the presence of independent witnesses and the land-holders, and therefore it is contrary to the principles law laid down by this Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi v. Lt. Governor Govt. Of N.C.T. Delhi & Ors., wherein, this Court held that when possession of a large tract of land is to be taken then it is permissible in law to take possession by a properly executed ‘panchnama’ attested by independent witnesses. This was further reiterated by this Court in its decisions in the case of Bhanda Development Authority, Raghubir Singh Sehrawat, Patasi Devi 8 (2009) 10 SCC 501 referred to supra. 15. Further, in the case on hand it is clear from the photographs produced along with the affidavit in support of additional documents produced before us that the appellant is still in physical possession of his acquired land. Undisputedly, actual physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken over by the respondents as pleaded by them by following due process of law. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings of the land of the appellant are lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 as both the conditions under the said provision are fulfilled in the present case. This Court has rightly interpreted the said provision in its three Judge Bench decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation referred to supra and the legal principle laid down with respect to the same in the above mentioned case was reiterated by this Court in the cases of Bharat Kumar (supra), Bimla Devi & Others v. State of Haryana & Others and Union of India & others v. Shiv Raj & Others. 16. 16. The relevant paras of the Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are extracted hereunder:- “20…….it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the Government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 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. Subsection (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.” 17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, we are of the view that neither compensation has been paid by the respondents to the appellant for the said acquisition even though more than five years have elapsed from the date of Award when the Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014 nor physical possession of the land belonging to the appellant has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellant’s land have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case and other cases referred to supra, we are of the opinion that the same are applicable to the fact situation on hand in respect of the land covered in this appeal for granting the relief as prayed by the appellant in the application. 18. In view of the above findings and reasons recorded by us with reference to the facts of the case and placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court referred to supra, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellant’s land have lapsed. The aforesaid application is allowed in the above terms and consequently, the appeal is also allowed by quashing the acquisition proceeding notification in so far as the land of the appellant is concerned.” 27. In The Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. JT 2015(9) SC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “2. The question for consideration is whether the compulsory acquisition of the appellant’s land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapses in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’). In our opinion, the question must be answered in the affirmative and it must be held that the compulsory acquisition of the appellant’s land has lapsed. 13. The law on the subject is now no longer res integra. The leading judgment in respect of Section 24(2) of the Act was delivered in Pune Municipal Corporation. It was concluded in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid decision, that the Award had been made by the Land Acquisition Collector more than five years prior to the commencement of the Act and compensation had not been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the Court. It was held that the deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury is of no avail. Consequently, there was no option but to hold that the land acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act. It was held that the deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury is of no avail. Consequently, there was no option but to hold that the land acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act. Paragraph 20 reads as follows:- “From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the Government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.” 14. Subsequently, this decision was followed in Union of India v. Shiv Raj. It was held, after examining the Objects and Reasons for the Act that since the possession of the acquired land had not been taken and compensation had been deposited with the Revenue Department, it could not be termed as “deemed payment” of the compensation as held in Pune Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India were liable to be dismissed. In this context, it may be noted that reference was also made to two other decisions of this Court namely Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana and Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana which were to the same effect. 15. The issue again came up for consideration in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation and Shiv Raj were followed. In that case, it was noted that there is a lack of clarity on the issue whether compensation has been paid for majority of the land holding under acquisition, but there was no dispute that possession of the land under consideration had not been taken by the State or any other authority. It was also noted that more than five years had elapsed since the making of the Award. On this basis, it was held that Section 24(2) of the Act was applicable and the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed. 16. It was also noted that more than five years had elapsed since the making of the Award. On this basis, it was held that Section 24(2) of the Act was applicable and the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed. 16. Finally, in Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab the issue was once again examined, this time a little more elaborately but there was no deviation from any of the decisions rendered by this Court. The additional submission made in this case on behalf of the State of Punjab and negatived by this Court, related to The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, whereby a second proviso was inserted in Section 24(2) of the Act. The Ordinance came into force with effect from 1st January, 2015 and it was held by this Court that the Ordinance had only prospective effect and was not retrospective. Therefore, the period of the grant of stay or injunction by any Court from taking possession of the acquired land would not be excluded retrospectively for computing the period of five years referred to in Section 24(2) of the Act. This issue does not arise in so far as the present appeal is concerned since no argument based on the Ordinance was raised and in any case the Ordinance has since lapsed. However, we are mentioning this only to highlight the fact that the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act has been considered by this Court from all possible angles. 17. The issue of retrospectivity of the Ordinance has also been considered in Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana and Rajiv Choudhrie HUF v. Union of India. 18. On the issue of retrospectivity, we may only mention the view taken by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. It was held in paragraph 29 or the Report as follows:- “The obvious basis of the principle against retrospectivity is the principle of “fairness” which must be the basis of every legal rule as was observed in L’Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties.” 19. Applying the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, it must be held that the appellant had an accrued right which must be recognized by Section 24(2) of the Act. The Ordinance which purported to take away such an accrued right would have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent was clearly to give it retrospective effect. As mentioned above, this issue does not arise in the present case but is being mentioned only to buttress the conclusion arrived at by this Court in Karnail Kaur and subsequent decisions.” 28. In Pawan Kumar Aggarwal Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. JT 2016(4) SC178, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “1. Leave granted. 2. It is not in dispute that though an award was passed in respect of the land belonging to the appellant, the appellant has not been dispossessed and hence the appellant is entitled for the protection under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In fact, we find that in respect of the same very acquisition Notification in a situation where the possession is still retained by the owner, this Court by Judgment dated 22.01.2015 in C.A.No.7424 of 2013 titled Karnail Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) SCC 206 has quashed the Notification, therefore, this appeal is allowed. Proceedings for acquisition in respect of the land belonging to the appellant covered by this appeal stand quashed.” 29. In D.D.A Vs. Raman Grover and Ors. JT 2016(5) SC 196, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “1. Leave granted. 2. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) SCC 206 has quashed the Notification, therefore, this appeal is allowed. Proceedings for acquisition in respect of the land belonging to the appellant covered by this appeal stand quashed.” 29. In D.D.A Vs. Raman Grover and Ors. JT 2016(5) SC 196, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, whereby the High Court gave a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the operation of Section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 3. Sh. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on instruction, faily concedes that as far as 1100 sq. yards of land belonging to Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the possession has not been taken by DDA, though the award had been passed as far back as in 1986. In that view of the matter, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act squarely applies in the case and the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the said extent of 1100 sq. yards belonging to Respondent No. 1 shall be deemed to have lapsed. 4. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.” 30. In Shashi Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. JT 2016(5) SC 196, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “3. It was brought to the notice of the Court that in view of the operation of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the 2013 Act”), the proceedings have lapsed and, therefore, on 05.05.2016, this Court passed the following order:- “In answer to RTI application, the petitioners have been informed that though the Award has been passed on 16.07.2007, the petitioner has not received the compensation. It is also stated in the RTI reply that the possession could not be taken on account of stay of dispossession in CWP No. 18579 of 2006. There will be a direction to respondent No. 1 to file affidavit on the following aspects: i) When was the amount of compensation deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector? ii) When was the stay of dispossession granted in CWP No. 18579/2006 and when was it vacated? There will be a direction to respondent No. 1 to file affidavit on the following aspects: i) When was the amount of compensation deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector? ii) When was the stay of dispossession granted in CWP No. 18579/2006 and when was it vacated? The Competent Officer of the State of Haryana shall file the reply on these two aspects on or before 11.05.2016. We make it clear that if reply as mentioned above is not filed, it will be taken that they have nothing to reply and that the special leave petitions are only to be allowed Post for Judgment/Order on 12.05.2016”. 5. We are afraid, we cannot appreciate the above submission of the learned counsel for the State. On the admitted facts, the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed since there is no stay on any count operating in the matter of possession or acquisition of the lands of the appellants after 12.08.2008. The 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Therefore, five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the appellats have not been dispossessed. It is also a fact that there is no payment of compensation in accordance with law as declared by this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. reported in (JT 2014(3) SC 283). 6. In view of the above admitted position, it is not necessary to remit the matters to the High Court. The land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in the facts of the present cases in view of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is declared so and the appeals are allowed. No costs.” 31. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Reena Suri and Ors. JT 2016(5) SC 291, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “1. Leave granted. 2. All these appeals have been filed by the Delhi Development Authority, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi. In the impugned Judgment, the High Court has taken the stand that the land acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and culminating in passing of awards on different dates, has lapsed in view of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, "2013 Act") in respect of the land covered by these appeals. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows :- "24. Section 24 of the 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 sub-section (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" 3. It may be seen that under Section 24(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and culminating in award under Section 11 of the said Act would lapse in case the possession after passing of the award has not been taken within five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act (9 of 2014). This Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the proceedings would also lapse in case the compensation has not been paid to the owners of the land before 01.01.2014. This Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the proceedings would also lapse in case the compensation has not been paid to the owners of the land before 01.01.2014. However, it is made clear under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that despite such lapse, it will be open to the appropriate Government to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. 4. Sh. Vishnu Saharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Delhi Development Authority, has submitted that once an award has been passed, the property vests in the Government and, therefore, there is no lapse. We are afraid, the contentions raised by him cannot be appreciated. 5. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows :-"Power to take possession - When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances." 6. Under the above provision, once an award has been made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the Collector has to take possession of the land and only thereupon, the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, passing of the award by itself will not enable the appellant to take a contention that the land has automatically vested with the Government on passing of the award. 7. It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the land has not been taken possession of by the Collector within five years or more prior to 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. 8. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.” 32. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgments, no second view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the present cases save and except that keeping in view that during the pendency of the present petitions, Parliament has repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in its place enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which has come in force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the said Act comes to the rescue of private respondents. Though there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the orders passed by the Collector vide which the applications filed by the present petitioners under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were dismissed are cryptic, but in my considered view, no fruitful purpose will be served by interfering with the said orders passed by Collector in view of coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.1.2014 during the pendency of these writ petitions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in interpretation of Section 24(2) of the said Act in the abovementioned judgments. 33. In view of the discussion held above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed, so also the Miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.