JUDGMENT : B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The present case is a classic example as to how some Officers of the State Government in collusion with the land owners have attempted to drop the land acquisition proceedings in respect of a piece of land which was reserved in the Development Plan as early as on 1.3.1993. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under : In the Development Plan for Anjangaon Surji Municipal Council, which is approved by the State Government on 1.3.1993, the land which is subject matter of the present proceedings came to be reserved under Reservation No.10. The Development Plan was notified on 1.3.1993. It appears that, on 3.6.2003, the petitioner had submitted a proposal to the Collector, Amravati for acquiring the aforesaid land for the purpose of constructing fruit and vegetable market. The Collector, Amravati sanctioned the proposal for acquisition and as such, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the LAC Act”) came to be issued. It appears from the pleadings in the petition that, on the objection at the instance of respondent nos. 4 and 5, the proceedings were temporarily stayed on 6.10.2005. Nodoubt that it is disputed on behalf of the land owners that the same was at the instance of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (for short 'APMC'). However, nothing would turn on the same and we, therefore, do not find it necessary to dwell upon the same. It is not in dispute that, thereafter on 27.7.2008, the petitioner again made a request for proceeding with the acquisition proceedings and as such, the notification came to be published on 1.4.2010 u/s. 6 of the LAC Act. It appears that, thereafter respondent nos. 4 and 5 had filed a revision before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister for grant of stay to the land acquisition proceedings of the said land. The Hon'ble Minister initially granted stay vide order dt.17.8.2011. Later on, the Hon'ble Minister, after considering the rival submissions, dismissed the revision application filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5. The said order came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by respondent nos. 4 and 5 by way of Writ Petition No.1187 of 2012. The Hon'ble Minister initially granted stay vide order dt.17.8.2011. Later on, the Hon'ble Minister, after considering the rival submissions, dismissed the revision application filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5. The said order came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by respondent nos. 4 and 5 by way of Writ Petition No.1187 of 2012. It appears that one Giriraj Vinugopal Naidu had also challenged the acquisition proceedings directly before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2551 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court did not find any merit in the petition filed by the said Giriraj and as such, dismissed the petition vide order dt.14.7.2011. 4. It appears that, in the meantime, ownership of the land had changed hands. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 had filed an application before this Court for impleading them as a party/respondents in the present proceedings and vide order dt.3.8.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, they are impleaded as respondents. 5. It will be interesting to note that, in the intervening period, certain interesting developments took place. One Mr. Madhukarrao Kamble, who has nothing to do either with the petitioner or owners of the land in question, wrote a letter to the Maharashtra State Marketing Board, Pune for staying the acquisition proceedings. Said Madhukarrao Kamble claims to be General Secretary of the Maharashtra Congress Committee. On the basis of the said letter, the said federation, who had no jurisdiction in the matter, addressed a communication to the petitioner, who, at the relevant time, was being managed by an Administrator/respondent no.6 herein stating therein that permission, as required u/s.12(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation), Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the APMC Act”) was not obtained by the APMC and as such, the APMC should submit proposal to the said federation u/s.12(1) of the APMC Act. It appears that respondent nos. 4 and 5 through their Power of Attorney challenged the said communication dt.21.11.2014 issued by the said Federation by way of appeal purported to be under Section 52(B) of the APMC Act. It will be interesting to note that u/s.52(B) of the APMC Act, there is no provision for appeal against any of the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Marketing Federation. It will be interesting to note that u/s.52(B) of the APMC Act, there is no provision for appeal against any of the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Marketing Federation. The Hon'ble Minister vide order dt.24.3.2015 allowed the appeal of respondent nos.4 and 5 and quashed and set aside the orders passed by the said Federation vide order dt.24.3.2015. 6. Since the elections of the APMC were not held, respondent no.6 had been appointed as an Administrator of the petitioner. Taking advantage of the order passed by Hon'ble Minister dt.24.3.2015, respondent no.6 passed a resolution thereby resolving to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings and for making application to the Land Acquisition Officer for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.5,80,880/- deposited by the petitioner with the State Government. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter on 19.9.2015 has passed an order stating therein that, in view of the orders passed by Hon'ble Minister dt.24.3.2015, it has become necessary to withdraw the acquisition proceedings. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 7. Another fact which is required to be noted is that, after resolution was passed by respondent no.6, respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein sought liberty to withdraw Writ Petition No.1187 of 2012, which liberty was granted by this Court on 11.6.2015. It is to be noted that the Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners had opposed withdrawal of the said petition. However, the Court observed that when the petitioners do not want to proceed with the said petition, they cannot be compelled to continue with the petition. The Court further observed that, if respondent no.4 therein (present petitioner herein) has any grievance with regard to orders passed in the proceedings under the provisions of APMC Act, it was at liberty to take such proceedings as are permissible in law. 8. It appears that, subsequently, after the order was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 19th September, 2015, the petitioners have approached this Court. 9. Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when this Court had, in Writ Petition No.2551 of 2011, put a seal on legality of the acquisition proceedings, further proceedings were not sustainable in law. He submits that respondent no.6 herein in collusion with respondent nos. 9. Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that when this Court had, in Writ Petition No.2551 of 2011, put a seal on legality of the acquisition proceedings, further proceedings were not sustainable in law. He submits that respondent no.6 herein in collusion with respondent nos. 4 and 5 has attempted to take recourse to an innovative method of first filing an application before the said Federation through one Madhukarrao Kamble and thereafter, after the said federation passing an order to approach the Hon'ble Minister in revision and further, thereafter, getting a favourable order from the Hon'ble Minister. It is further submitted that thereafter by using the order of Hon'ble Minister, respondent nos. 4 and 5 in collusion with respondent no.6 have got resolution passed from respondent no.6, who was the sole administrator and thereafter, respondent no.6 has applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for closing the land acquisition proceedings and withdrawing the amount. 10. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 7 to 9, on the contrary, submits that the Hon'ble Minister was totally justified in passing the order u/s. 12 of the APMC Act. Learned Counsel further submits that Rule 109(A) of the Rules framed under the APMC Act also prescribe prior permission to be mandatory. He, therefore, submits that no error could be noticed in the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. 11. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submits that, in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) having come into effect on 1.1.2014, the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Ms T.H. Udeshi, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 fairly concedes that though one of the factors that has been taken into consideration by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is that since no award was passed u/s. 12 within the prescribed period in view of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed, as a matter of fact, in view of stay granted by the Hon'ble Minister and this Court, the said ground would not be sustainable in law. 13. 13. We find that the parties herein have resorted to an ingenuous method so as to overcome the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier proceedings as well as the order passed by the State Government itself in the earlier proceedings. 14. As it could be seen from the material placed on record that the petition came to be filed before this Court by one of the co-land owners bearing Writ Petition No.2551 of 2011 contending therein that, in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, reservation for APMC could not be made and proceedings for acquisition cannot proceed further. However, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dt.14.7.2011 specifically rejected this contention. 15. Not only this, but, in the meantime, respondent nos. 4 and 5 had initiated collateral proceedings before the State Government. The State Government initially, on 17.8.2011, had granted stay. However, after hearing all the parties including the petitioner, revision application was rejected by order dt.23.2.2012. The said order was immediately challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1187 of 2012. 16. However, it appears that, in the meantime, a novel method was found out to give a by-pass to the orders passed by this Court and the State Government. One Madhukarrao Kamble, who claims to be a General Secretary of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Minister (Agricultural and Marketing) praying for stopping illegal proceedings for acquisition of land for APMC. It appears that the Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation, who had no business to interfere in the matter, directed the petitioner herein to submit a proposal for grant of permission u/s.12(1) of the APMC Act. It is difficult to understand as to how an application at the instance of said Madhukarrao Kamble, who had nothing to do with the said proceedings was tenable in law. From perusal of Annexure-H i.e. the order passed by the said Federation, it appears that the address given therein of said Shri Kamble is that of Mumbai. It is further surprising to note as to how respondent nos.4 and 5 were aware of the said order. Invoking provisions of Section 52(A) of the APMC Act, the appeal is filed before the State Government by respondent nos. 4 and 5. It is further surprising to note as to how respondent nos.4 and 5 were aware of the said order. Invoking provisions of Section 52(A) of the APMC Act, the appeal is filed before the State Government by respondent nos. 4 and 5. The Hon'ble Minister allows the revision application and quashed and set aside the order passed by the said Federation. 17. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel rightly contends that the order passed by the said Federation was without any authority and as such, the Hon'ble Minister was totally justified in passing the order. We are in full agreement with the learned Senior Counsel. However, for the same reason, we also find that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister itself was without jurisdiction. It is pertinent to refer to Section 52(B) of the APMC Act, which reads thus : “52B. (1) Save as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Act, any person aggrieved by a decision taken or order passed under any of the provisions of this Act may prefer an appeal - (a) to the Director where such decision is taken or order is passed by the Market Committee, its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary or any other officer empowered to exercise the powers of the Director, (b) to the State Government, where such decision is taken or order is passed by the Director. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be made within a period of thirty days from the date of the decision or order appealed against. (3) The order passed in the appeal by the Director or the State Government, as the case may be, shall be final. 18. Insofar as submission made by Mr. C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel with regard to Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the APMC Act is concerned, we do not find it necessary to go into that issue in the background of the factual matrix in the present matter. Firstly, in Writ Petition No.2551 of 2011, said land owner could have very well agitated the said issue. Secondly, that liberty was also very much available to the predecessor-in-title of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9, inasmuch as Writ Petition 1187 of 2012 was very much pending before this Court for adjudication. Firstly, in Writ Petition No.2551 of 2011, said land owner could have very well agitated the said issue. Secondly, that liberty was also very much available to the predecessor-in-title of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9, inasmuch as Writ Petition 1187 of 2012 was very much pending before this Court for adjudication. However, in view of subsequent developments which have been discussed elaborately hereinabove, said respondents have chosen not to get the said petition decided on merits and have chosen some innovative method to overcome the order passed by this Court as well as the State Government. 19. It could be seen from the provision of Section 52-B of the APMC Act that the appeal which is available to the State Government is only against the decision taken or order passed by the Director. Admittedly, the order which is challenged before the Hon'ble Minister was not passed by the Director. In that view of the matter, the appeal itself was not tenable. 20. Respondent No.6, who by fortuitous circumstances of the elections of the petitioner/Committee not being held and he being appointed as a sole Administrator from 8.8.2013, takes the entire responsibility of protecting interest of petitioner/APMC upon himself. He passes a resolution on 22.5.2015. It will be relevant to note the text of said resolution. True translated version thereof reads thus : “The Order dt.24.3.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department, Mumbai is the Government order. The said order is against Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Anjangaon Surji. At present I am working as an Administrator of the Agriculture Market Committee and I am Government employee. Therefore, the Government Order, dt.24.3.2015 is binding upon me and thus it is not proper and reasonable to challenge it. Hence, further action is being taken as per the said Government Order. It is decided that as per the aforesaid Order, dt.24.3.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, Cooperation, Marketing and Textile, the land acquisition proceedings should be stayed and it should be communicated to the Collector, accordingly. Similarly, action should be taken in order to get refund of Rs.5,80,880/- deposited with the Competent Authority under land acquisition proceedings. The resolution is passed in the administrative meeting.” 21. Respondent No.6 candidly states that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is against the interest of APMC. Similarly, action should be taken in order to get refund of Rs.5,80,880/- deposited with the Competent Authority under land acquisition proceedings. The resolution is passed in the administrative meeting.” 21. Respondent No.6 candidly states that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister is against the interest of APMC. However, he being an administrator and the Officer of Government, directions of the Government dt.24.3.2015 are binding upon him and therefore, it will not be appropriate for him to challenge the same and as such, resolves to communicate to the Collector, to stop acquisition proceedings and make an application for withdrawal of amount of Rs.5,80,880/-. In pursuance of the resolution made by an Administrator, Secretary of the Petitioner/Federation addressed communication on 23.5.2015 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for withdrawal of the said amount and for closing the acquisition proceedings. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the impugned order on 19.9.2015. In the meantime, respondent no.4 also addressed a letter to the Collector for the same purpose on 30.5.2015. 22. It is pertinent to note that the only reference made in the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is finding of Hon'ble Minister that the Land Acquisition proceedings are not permissible in law. 23. We do not propose to comment anything on the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. It is expected that the Authorities of the State Government act as custodians of public interest. Be that as it may, since we have come to the considered conclusion that neither the said Marketing Federation nor the Hon'ble Minister had any jurisdiction to pass the orders passed by them, it will have to be held that the orders so passed were without any authority of law and as such, void ab initio and nonest. 24. Once we hold that the said orders are nonest, all subsequent proceedings including purported resolution of the petitioner, passed by respondent no.6 and the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which was solely on the basis of observations made by Hon'ble Minister in his order dt.24.3.2015 would not be sustainable in law. 25. Insofar as the contention of Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel that, in view of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the LAC Act shall stand lapsed is concerned, in our considered view, the said submission is de hors the plain words used in the Statute. 25. Insofar as the contention of Mr. P.C. Madkholkar, learned Counsel that, in view of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the LAC Act shall stand lapsed is concerned, in our considered view, the said submission is de hors the plain words used in the Statute. It will be relevant to refer to Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which reads thus : “24(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.” 26. Perusal of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 would reveal that, in case of the land acquisition proceedings under the LAC Act, where no award u/s.11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made out, then all the provisions of this Act (the Act of 2013) relating to determination of compensation shall apply. Admittedly, in the present case, Award u/s.11 has not been passed. Admittedly, in the present case, Award u/s.11 has not been passed. As such, the said case would be squarely covered under clause (a) of sub-section 1 and at the most, owners of the land would be entitled to compensation to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013. Insofar as lapse is concerned, specific class is carved out by the Legislatures in sub-section 2 of Section 24. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners would not fall in the category carved out under sub-section (2). In that view of the matter, the submission made by the learned Counsel Mr. P.C. Madkholkar in that regard deserves no merits. 27. Before we part with the Judgment, we may notice that, in the present case, an attempt has been made by the owners of the land in collusion with respondent no.6 and may be some other Government Officers so as to overcome the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2551 of 2011 and the order passed by the State Government in the earlier revision. We also note that when the order passed by the State Government in the earlier revision challenging the order passed in the revision by the State Government was pending by way of Writ Petition No.1187 of 2012 filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, it was wholly inappropriate on the part of State Government to have entertained the issue with respect to the very subject matter which was pending before this Court and that too, at the instance of same respondents. We also have no hesitation to hold that respondent no.6 herein has acted totally contrary to the interest of APMC. 28. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Maharashtra State. We are aware about our limitations. However, the present matter is a glaring example, as to why Subordinate Officers of the State Government should not be appointed as Administrators of either Cooperative Societies or APMCs, who, rather than protecting interest of such Societies, act in a manner detrimental to interest of such Societies, as has happened in the present case. We are aware about our limitations. However, the present matter is a glaring example, as to why Subordinate Officers of the State Government should not be appointed as Administrators of either Cooperative Societies or APMCs, who, rather than protecting interest of such Societies, act in a manner detrimental to interest of such Societies, as has happened in the present case. We further direct that an inquiry should be conducted into the matter as to how respondent no.6 has passed a resolution contrary to the interest of petitioner/society and has acted in a hasty manner, without awaiting the elected body to come, which was to come hardly within a couple of months. 29. In the result, the petition deserves to allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (1), (2) and (3) of the Writ Petition.