JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. This Special Civil Application is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayers, which read as under: "(A) To admit this petition; (B) To issue appropriate writ, order or directions (i) quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to the lands of the petitioners vide Land Acquisition Case No.9 of 2006 holding it to be in violation of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (ii) quashing and setting aside the order of the respondent No.2 dated April, 2007 whereby the objections of the petitioners against S.4 notification have been rejected holding the same to be illegal, untenable, unreasoned and against the settled legal position; (iii) holding that non-declaration of award by the respondent No. within a period of two years from the date of declaration results in the lapse of entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to the lands of the petitioners and (iv) further directing the respondent No.4 to hand over the possession of the lands of the petitioners to the petitioners forthwith (BB)To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings pertaining to the lands of the petitioners vide Land Acquisition Case No.9/2006 as 'well as the award passed by the respondent No.2 on 1.8.2009 in the interest of justice; (C) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, to issue appropriate writ, order or direction (i) directing the respondent No.3 to declare consent award as per the terms of the agreement of consent award recorded and drawn on 21.4.2008 (Annexure "L") with all consequential statutory benefits to the petitioners and (ii) be pleased to grant interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the total amount from 21.4.2008 till realization since the respondents are responsible for the delay. (D) To issue appropriate writ, order or directions During pendency and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any steps de hors the consent award recorded and drawn on 21.4.2008 (Annexure "L") or to declare any award under Section 11 of the Act which is against the terms of the said agreement; (E) During pendency and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to pay mesne profits to the petitioners as damages for holding over possession of the lands of the petitioner at appropriate market rate; (F) To provide costs of the present petition; (G) To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. The petitioners are owners of the land covered by Block Nos. 196, 30, 193 and 192/A, admeasuring H-A-Sq.Mt. 00- 93-00, 00-14-00, 00-36-00 and 00-23-00 respectively situated at village-Kalam, Tal.-Hansot, District-Bharuch. Initially, the aforesaid land was taken on rent by way of temporary acquisition by the 4th respondent, viz. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, for the purpose of setting up a drill site No. MTDG. Thereafter, on 10.6.2014, the 4th respondent addressed letter to the 2nd respondent to get the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Pursuant to such letter, the land was demarcated by taking assistance from the District Inspector of Land Records, Bharuch. After the measurements, necessary notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act") was published in the Official Gazette on 30th June, 2006. Same was also published in the newspapers and subsequently, notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 26th June, 2007. In the award proceedings, the 2nd respondent herein arranged several meetings between the petitioners the owners of the land and the officers of the 4th respondent for negotiating the market price for passing consent award. After negotiations, the parties have arrived at a consensus and agreed to the rate of the acquired land at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt. On 21st April, 2008, agreement was signed by the parties. Pursuant to that, the 2nd respondent addressed letter dated 22nd/23rd April, 2008 to the 4th respondent for releasing the amount of Rs. 29,54,800/- to pass the consent award. On the proposal of the 2nd respondent for releasing the amount of Rs. 178/- per sq.mt. On 21st April, 2008, agreement was signed by the parties. Pursuant to that, the 2nd respondent addressed letter dated 22nd/23rd April, 2008 to the 4th respondent for releasing the amount of Rs. 29,54,800/- to pass the consent award. On the proposal of the 2nd respondent for releasing the amount of Rs. 29,54,800/-, there was no response from the 4th respondent. Ultimately on 13th March, 2009, the 4th respondent addressed letter to the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, informing that the 4th respondent is not agreeable for the consent award and requested to pass award on regular basis. 2.1. Though the petitioners have participated in the award proceedings, where the 2nd respondent has arranged meeting of the petitioners with representatives of the 4th respondent for passing consent award and the parties have agreed for entering into an agreement for passing consent award, after the communication dated 18th March, 2009, addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent, the petitioners were not informed about withdrawal of such consent and ultimately, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed award under section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31st August, 2009, and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 31st August, 2009 fixing the compensation of the land at the market price of Rs. 16/- per sq.mt solely on the basis of the report of the District Valuation Committee though certain documents and other evidences were placed on record. The evidence on record was not considered and award is passed only on the basis of the report submitted by the District Valuation Committee. 3. The writ petition is filed, initially challenging the acquisition proceedings, but later on when the 2nd respondent has passed award under section 11(1) of the Act on 31st August, 2009 after withdrawal of the consent by the 4th respondent, further prayer is amended questioning the award dated 31st August, 2009. 4. The 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed affidavit in reply in the writ-petition on 17th December, 2009. While denying various allegations made by the petitioners, in clear terms, the 2nd respondent has stated that the parties have arrived at a consensus and agreed to the market rate at Rs. 4. The 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed affidavit in reply in the writ-petition on 17th December, 2009. While denying various allegations made by the petitioners, in clear terms, the 2nd respondent has stated that the parties have arrived at a consensus and agreed to the market rate at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt and agreement for consent award dated 21st April, 2008 was filed. However, it is stated that as the 4th respondent addressed letter dated 18th March, 2009 to the 2nd respondent, withdrawing the consent, and requested to pass award on regular basis, award was passed by the 2nd respondent under section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31st August, 2009 fixing the compensation of the acquired land at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. It is also clearly stated in the reply that market value of Rs. 16/- per sq.mt was fixed based on the report of the District Valuation Committee. By furnishing particulars of various dates of notifications under section 4(1) and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Official Gazette as well as the newspapers, it is stated that award is passed within the prescribed time and further, in view of pendency of references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no case is made out for grant of reliefs as prayed for. 5. Affidavit in rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioners. In the affidavit in rejoinder, while denying various averments made in reply filed by the 2nd respondent, it is categorically pleaded that, after arriving at a consensus on the market value of the acquired land payable to the petitioners, for considerable time the 2nd respondent has not passed any award and in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent addressed letter dated 18th March, 2009 to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has acted on such letter and passed award under section 11(1) of the Act on regular basis without any notice and opportunity to the petitioners to prove their case in support of their claim. It is stated in rejoinder that the petitioners were never informed by the 2nd respondent regarding letter dated 18th March, 2009. It is further pleaded that, in the manner in which the award is passed, the 2nd respondent has acted arbitrarily and illegally. It is stated in rejoinder that the petitioners were never informed by the 2nd respondent regarding letter dated 18th March, 2009. It is further pleaded that, in the manner in which the award is passed, the 2nd respondent has acted arbitrarily and illegally. It is pleaded that in the same village, the Town Planner had assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 157/- per sq.mt for temporary occupation of the land, which was taken into consideration by the District Valuation Committee and same was enhanced to Rs. 375/- per sq.mt in the year 2006. It is pleaded that, by no stretch of imagination, the District Valuation Committee would have recommended Rs. 16/- per sq.mt, which is made the basis for passing award under section 11(1) of the Act. 6. Further affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent in compliance of order dated 27th March, 2014, and same was sworn on 22nd April, 2014. 7. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent by the Chief Geologist of L.A.Q. Section of the 4th respondent. In the affidavit in reply, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that the last date of publication of section 6 notification was 13th September, 2007 and award under section 11(1) of the Act was passed on 31st August, 2009 and same is within statutory period prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that higher authorities of the 4th respondent were not agreeable for the market value agreed, as such, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not passed award under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. Further affidavit in rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioners to the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, on 22nd April, 2014. 9. Further affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, which was sworn on 27th March, 2018. In the said affidavit, it is stated that in absence of any provision for fresh notice after negotiations, award cannot be questioned on the ground that same was passed without further inquiry and notice. 9. Further affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, which was sworn on 27th March, 2018. In the said affidavit, it is stated that in absence of any provision for fresh notice after negotiations, award cannot be questioned on the ground that same was passed without further inquiry and notice. It is further stated that the land in question is used for drilling and oil producing well No. MTDG and presently, the oil well is producing approximately 48 cubic meters of gas per day and the 4th respondent is earning US$ 18,00,000 approximately per annum in terms of foreign exchange from the said well on the land in question. It is further stated that, if the acquisition is set aside, the entire production would come to a grinding halt causing not only loss to the 4th respondent Corporation but also to the nation at large. 10. During the course of hearing, in earlier occasions, when we have noticed from the averments made in the reply affidavit that, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation relying on the report prepared by the District Valuation Committee, which is not figured in the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Rules made thereunder, this petition was adjourned to enable the Special Land Acquisition Officer of ONGC, Ankleshwar to file affidavit to explain the authority of such Committee to prepare the report. Further affidavit in reply is filed by the In charge Special Land Acquisition of ONGC, Ankleshwar. Paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 of the said further affidavit in reply read as under: "2. It is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court had required the answering respondent to justify the circumstances under which the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC received from the District Valuation Land Committee chaired by the Collector, Bharuch. The valuation of the lands in question which became the basis for passing of award dated 1.08.2009 which has been called in question in the present proceedings. 3. The valuation of the lands in question which became the basis for passing of award dated 1.08.2009 which has been called in question in the present proceedings. 3. It is most respectfully submitted that the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 17.11.1988 has instructed all concerned Land Acquisition Officers appointed for acquisitions to be undertaken for on behalf of ONGC and Gujarat Housing Board to ensure that the Hon'ble Court land sought to be required for acquisitions are to be to be valued by District Valuation committee of the concerned District where such lands are situated. A copy of the GR is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R1. 4. It is most respectfully submitted that it is pursuant to the above instructions of the State Government that the compensation payable towards the land in question was sent for determination before Land Valuation Committee. 5. It is most respectfully submitted that as regards the quarry(sic) of this Hon'ble Court pertaining to whether or not inquiry is undertaken (i.e. calling for objections from the land losers and considering their objections if any raised) after ONGC retracted from entering into a consent award, it already been clarified through communication dated 07.05.2018 made by the answering respondent that due to paucity of time, no such inquiry was made after the ONGC retracted from entering into a consent award with regards the land in question. A copy of the said communication is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R2." 11. We have heard Shri Nirav C. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader Ms. M.L. Shah for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Shri Ajay R. Mehta, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 12. Acquisition proceedings are challenged on several grounds. But during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that, though agreement was entered into by and between the petitioners-owners and the respondent no.4-beneficiary and same is filed in the award proceedings for passing consent award under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but subsequently, the 4th respondent-beneficiary unilaterally rescinded from such agreement and addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, withdrawing from the consented rate, without any notice and opportunity to the petitioners. It is submitted that, after consent was withdrawn by the 4th respondent-beneficiary, without giving any further notice and opportunity, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed award under section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by fixing the compensation, only at the rate of Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. It is submitted that, agreement, which was arrived at and submitted to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, agreed at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt. It is submitted that, after withdrawal of consent unilaterally by the ONGC, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the impugned award based on the report of the District Valuation Committee, and fixed the compensation at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. It is contended that, when the petitioners and the beneficiary agreed for passing consent award and when such agreement is already submitted before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Special Land Acquisition Officer should have passed award based on such agreed price and consent terms. It is further submitted that, in any event, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer should not have passed award solely relying on the report of the District Valuation Committee, which itself is exparte one. It is further submitted that, when the 2nd respondent is a statutory functionary, invested with powers to determine the compensation, he alone is competent to determine the rate of the acquired land by considering the relevant material, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer has committed serious error in passing award solely relying on the report of the District Valuation Committee. 13. Learned Government Pleader Ms. M.L. Shah for the 1st and 2nd respondents has submitted that, though agreement was entered into by the petitioners and the requisition department, and such agreement is submitted in the award proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, but subsequently, the 4th respondent has addressed letter dated 18th March, 2009 to the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer informing that the 4th respondent is not agreeable for the consent award. As such, award was not passed on consent terms under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further, based on the report of the District Valuation Committee, award was passed fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. 14. As such, award was not passed on consent terms under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further, based on the report of the District Valuation Committee, award was passed fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt. 14. Learned counsel Shri Ajay Mehta for the 4th respondent has contended that, after award is passed, the petitioners having not satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and such references are pending before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 261 to 264 of 2013. It is submitted that, in view of pendency of the references, there is no reason or justification for the petitioners to file this petition questioning the acquisition proceedings and award passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended that, though agreement was signed between the parties and submitted before the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, for passing an award on consent terms at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt., but as the competent authority has not agreed for such terms, subsequently, letter was addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent on 18th March, 2009. Thereafter, award was passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer under section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that, in the acquired land, there is oil well of the 4th respondent and at this stage if there is any interference with the acquisition proceedings, the 4th respondent would be put to irreparable loss and injury. 15. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have perused the material on record and the award passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer. 16. From the pleadings and other material on record, it is clear that, land in question was originally taken on temporary basis by the 4th respondent-ONGC. Thereafter, ONGC requisitioned to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, land acquisition proceedings are initiated, and notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30th August, 2006 and declaration was published under section 6 of the Act on 26th June, 2007. The impugned award is also challenged on the ground that award is not passed within the statutory period. Thereafter, land acquisition proceedings are initiated, and notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30th August, 2006 and declaration was published under section 6 of the Act on 26th June, 2007. The impugned award is also challenged on the ground that award is not passed within the statutory period. However, if all the dates of publication of notifications, including in the newspapers, are taken into consideration, award is passed within time prescribed in statute, as such, such ground is not available to the petitioners to challenge the acquisition. 17. At the same time, it is to be noticed that, in the award inquiry, the petitioners as well as the representative of the 4th respondent have appeared before the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer. During pendency of the award proceedings, the petitioners and the 4th respondent beneficiary have negotiated the market value of the land in question and entered into an agreement for passing award by fixing the rate of the acquired lands at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt, and such agreement is submitted to the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer. After such agreement is filed, wherein the parties have agreed for passing the consent award by fixing the compensation at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt., the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has addressed letter dated 22/23-4-2008 to the 4th respondent requesting him to deposit an amount of Rs. 29,54,800/-. No further steps were taken thereafter. But after a period of one year, letter dated 18th March, 2009 was addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent rescinding from the agreement entered between the petitioners. However, such letter was not addressed to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that after the letter was addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent, withdrawing from the rate consented, no further inquiry is conducted by giving opportunity to the petitioners and the petitioners were also not informed of the letter addressed by the 4th respondent. It is clear from the record that, thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed impugned award by fixing the compensation at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt, solely relying on the report prepared by the District Valuation Committee. It is clear from the further affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent on 19th June, 2018 that, the District Valuation Committee is constituted pursuant to Government Resolution dated 17th November, 1988. 16/- per sq.mt, solely relying on the report prepared by the District Valuation Committee. It is clear from the further affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent on 19th June, 2018 that, the District Valuation Committee is constituted pursuant to Government Resolution dated 17th November, 1988. On instructions, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that, District Valuation Committee is constituted to suggest values for acquisition of lands for ONGC and Gujarat Housing Board. 18. From the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, once the land is acquired by issuing necessary notification by competent authority under the Act and when the 2nd respondent is appointed as Special Land Acquisition Officer, it is for the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who is a statutory functionary under the scheme of the Act, to pass award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Determination of compensation should be as contemplated under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 2nd respondent is not expected to pass award solely based on the report of the District Valuation Committee, which is constituted by the government, de hors the powers conferred on him under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If at all the District Valuation Committee suggests any value same can be the piece of evidence to consider along with other evidence available on record, but at the same time, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer has committed serious error by passing award solely relying on the report of the District Valuation Committee. It is also to be noticed that in the agreement between the petitioners and the 4th respondent, the parties have agreed to fix market value of the acquired land at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt. During the course of award inquiry, when the parties, viz. the beneficiary and the petitioners-owners have entered into an agreement and signed agreement is presented before the Land Acquisition officer, if for any reason, such agreement was withdrawn subsequently, the Special Land Acquisition Officer should have conducted further inquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioners. The petitioners were kept in dark about the letter addressed by the 4th respondent, withdrawing their consent for passing consent award. The petitioners were kept in dark about the letter addressed by the 4th respondent, withdrawing their consent for passing consent award. After consent was withdrawn by addressing letter to the 2nd respondent, there was no communication at all about such letter to the petitioners and further, Special Land Acquisition officer has also not considered the other evidence on record and fixed compensation at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt solely relying on the report of the District Valuation Committee. On this ground alone, award is fit to be quashed by this Court. 19. Under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, once lands are acquired, award is to be passed either under section 11(1) or section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which read as under: "11. Enquiry and award by Collector (1) On the days so fixed or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 by to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of- (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among an the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him: Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf: Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement." 20. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that, impugned award is not passed in conformity with the law on the subject. Award passed is not only contrary to the statutory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as much as the petitioners-owners were not put on notice after consent was withdrawn by the 4th respondent-beneficiary. Although it is the case of the 4th respondent that the references, which are made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are pending in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 261 to 264 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar, but as much as award itself is not passed in conformity with the law, merely because references are pending under section 18 of the Act, same is no ground to deny relief to the petitioners. 21. During pendency of these proceedings, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is repealed and new Act, i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force. Under section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in case land acquisition is initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and if award is not passed under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the time new Act, i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has come into force, all the provisions of the New Act of 2013 are made applicable. As the 4th respondent company has already utilized the land for larger public purpose by drilling well for natural gas and developed the same, we are not inclined to quash the very acquisition proceedings but as much as award passed is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law, particularly under sections 11 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the award dated 31st August, 2009 need to be quashed. The award passed by the 2nd respondent is not an award in the eye of law, as such, fresh award is required to be passed by extending the benefits conferred under section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is also to be noticed that, petitioners have not received compensation and merely because they sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, same would not come in the way of petitioners for grant of relief to the limited extent of quashing the award passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As the land was acquired as early as in the year 2003, appropriate directions are also required to be issued for passing award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a the time-frame. 22. As much as the 4th respondent-beneficiary, during the award inquiry proceedings have entered into an agreement with the petitioners-owners by fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 178/- per sq.mt and after withdrawal of consent, award was passed by fixing the compensation at Rs. 16/- per sq.mt, as such we were of the view that, this is a fit case for settling the dispute between the parties. Though matter was adjourned on several occasions to give opportunity to settle the matter, learned counsel for the 4th respondent reported that the 4th respondent is not agreeable for any such settlement. 23. In view of the above said discussion and reasons recorded, the impugned award is required to be quashed. Accordingly, this Special Civil Application is allowed in part by quashing the award dated 31st August, 2009 passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 2006. 23. In view of the above said discussion and reasons recorded, the impugned award is required to be quashed. Accordingly, this Special Civil Application is allowed in part by quashing the award dated 31st August, 2009 passed by the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 2006. Consequently, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to pass fresh award, by applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 24. As much as the impugned award is quashed, the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 261 to 264 of 2013, pending before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar are required to be dismissed as infructuous. It is open for the petitioners to place this judgment before that Competent court so as to see that such references are closed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.