Judgment : 1. Through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have approached this Court in order to challenge the acquisition of their land bearing Khasra Nos. 439, 440 and 441 situated at Tehsil Ratangarh as undertaken by respondent No.2, Land Acquisition Officer, Ratangarh for the purpose of establishing a Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at Ratangarh. 2. The writ petition filed, challenging the notification (Annexure-12) dated 25.10.1993 proposing to acquire the petitioners’ land at Tehsil Ratangarh was rejected by the Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2001 on the ground of delay. The petitioners filed a Special Appeal No.52/2002 being aggrieved of the Single Bench judgment dated 12.12.2001. The special appeal came to be allowed vide judgment dated 13.08.2008 and the matter was remanded to the Single Bench for fresh consideration. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein, they have annexed the copy of the final award issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Inspite of all these developments, the specific case set up by the petitioners is that till date possession of the disputed acquired land has not been taken by the respondents and the petitioners continue to hold possession thereof. Numerous photographs and other documents have been filed alongwith the writ petition in order to buttress the contention regarding land under acquisition being in possession of the petitioners. During pendency of the writ petition, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force with Section 24(2) providing for automatic lapse of unfructified acquisitions made under the Act of 1894. 3. On 12.01.2017, Sh. Nitin Trivedi, learned counsel representing the petitioners made a statement before this Court that possession of the land under acquisition was never taken over by the Land Acquisition Officer. The payment of compensation was neither made to the petitioners nor deposited in the Reference Court and thus, the questioned land acquisition proceedings have lapsed. Upon this statement, the learned counsel for the respondents were directed to file additional affidavit of the concerned officer so as to apprise this Court regarding the veracity of the contention raised by the petitioners’ counsel. An additional affidavit of the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ratangarh has been filed by Mr. Upon this statement, the learned counsel for the respondents were directed to file additional affidavit of the concerned officer so as to apprise this Court regarding the veracity of the contention raised by the petitioners’ counsel. An additional affidavit of the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ratangarh has been filed by Mr. Sunil Joshi in response to such direction wherein, it is averred that possession of the land was handed over to the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in presence of witnesses. However, on going through the possession memo placed on record as Annexure-AA/2 it is evident that the same does not bear the signatures of the land holders. That apart, the witnesses who signed the memo of possession are either officers of the Revenue Department or the employees of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ratangarh. Thus apparently, the possession memo was not prepared in presence of either the land holders or independent witnesses. A copy of the letter dated 11.02.2017 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratangarh has been placed on record alongwith this additional affidavit as per which, cheque No.000177 dated 01.09.2006 for a sum of Rs.5,36,858/- towards the compensation in lieu of acquisition of the land in question was deposited in the account of the Land Acquisition Officer SBBJ, Ratangarh. The respondents have, in the additional affidavit, not denied the fact that the compensation was not deposited in the Reference Court in terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Further plea is taken in the additional affidavit that there was an interim stay on the acquisition proceedings and thus, the respondents could not proceed with the acquisition. However, it is not denied that no stay order is operating in the matter since the year 2008. 4. In this background and keeping in view the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Working Friends Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2016(1) WLC (SC) Civil 276, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no escape from the conclusion that the proceedings of the questioned land acquisition have to fail as having lapsed in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 24(2) of the LARR Act. reported in 2016(1) WLC (SC) Civil 276, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no escape from the conclusion that the proceedings of the questioned land acquisition have to fail as having lapsed in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 24(2) of the LARR Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Working Friends Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd. (supra), considered the entire controversy after examining various Judicial pronouncements on the subject and went on to hold as below:- “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. 20. In so far as the facts of the present appeal are concerned, there is considerable doubt whether the appellant is in possession of the acquired land or whether the respondents are in possession of the acquired land. It is not necessary for us to go into this issue at all. This is for the reason that one of the requirements mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act is that the compensation should have either been paid to the land owner or should have been deposited in the Reference Court. The admitted position is that the compensation of Rs. 35,52,528/- was neither paid to the appellant nor was it deposited in the Reference Court. It was admittedly deposited in the Government Treasury of the State. The deposit was, apart from anything else, made only after the Act came into force and was perhaps with a view to get over the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act and the prayer made in I.A. No. 4. Unfortunately, even the deposit of the compensation amount in the Reference Court on 26th June, 2014 does not come to the aid of the appellant under any circumstances and cannot be taken as “deemed payment”. 21. Unfortunately, even the deposit of the compensation amount in the Reference Court on 26th June, 2014 does not come to the aid of the appellant under any circumstances and cannot be taken as “deemed payment”. 21. Taking into account all the facts of the appeal as well as the consistent view taken by this Court on several occasions, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that acquisition proceedings in so far as the appellant is concerned lapsed with the enactment of the Act.” 5. In that case, the amount had been deposited in the State Government Treasury but, despite that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to hold that the compensation not having been deposited in the Reference Court, the acquisition lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. In the case at hand, the situation is even graver. Admittedly, the compensation was deposited in the account of the Land Acquisition Officer and thus, the acquisition proceedings have definitely lapsed and failed in view of the mischief of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. 6. Consequently, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned land acquisition proceedings are declared to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.