ORDER 1. On 05.05.2016, this Court decided Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2016 as follows: "............................. In this case, no award has been passed and the land value has not been given to the owner. The impugned order is hence set aside. The appellant and the Acquisitioning Authority are directed to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award under the provisions of the 2013 Act. This shall be done within a period of six months and needless also to say that the entire compensation due to respondent No. 1 would be calculated in terms of the 2013 Act and the same shall either be deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector or disbursed to the respondent No. 1 within one month thereafter. 2. Pursuant to this judgment, an Award dated 05.11.2016 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh, where the section 4 date (of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) was taken to be the last date of publication viz., 21.10.2004. 3. The applicant/respondent No.1 has moved Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 2016 pointing out that it is necessary that a date be fixed in place of the old Section for notification where the compensation is to be awarded under section 11 read with the other provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act'). 4. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has fairly not pressed prayer (a) of the application which would amount to a review in disguise of our original judgment dated 05.05.2016. On the other hand, learned senior counsel has referred to and relied upon certain judgments of the Allahabad High Court and some of our judgments to show that, by an order under section 113 of the 2013 Act, the Central Government has stated that the relevant date for the purposes of amount of compensation under the 2013 Act in all cases where the Award has not yet been passed, would now uniformly be 01.01.2014. As against this, Shri J.M. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Authorities, has argued that the application being a review in disguise ought to be dismissed at the threshold. He also pointed out certain other cases where compensation had been deposited in treasury. As against this, Shri J.M. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Authorities, has argued that the application being a review in disguise ought to be dismissed at the threshold. He also pointed out certain other cases where compensation had been deposited in treasury. According to him, if compensation at this rate had to be paid 10 years after the original Section for notification, the Authority should be able to pass on the additional compensation to those who are present allottees of the land. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the State has argued that notwithstanding certain judgments of the Allahabad High Court and of this Court, there are other special leave petitions which are pending consideration. He has also argued that the impact upon the State's Budget will be such that if persons come forward asking for compensation 10, 12 and more years after the section 4 notifications, the State Finances would be in grave difficulty. However, he fairly stated that since the State has taken a stand in certain other cases that this ought to be the relevant date, it would be the very difficult for it to take an opposite stand in other cases. 5. Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, we find that the Allahabad High Court has taken a consistent view that the State be made to follow the Central Government's direction issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. Thus, in 'Ishan International Educational Society v. State of U.P. and Ors.' decided on 09.05.2017, a Division Bench of the High Court, after referring to the aforesaid direction in paragraph 11 of the judgment, went on to hold: "21.The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner under the provisoins of the 2013 Act by treating 1 January 2014 as the date on which the market value of the land should be determined. This exercise should be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer." 6. From this judgment, a three Judges' Bench of this Court, on 09.07.2017, dismissed a special leave petition. Apart from the dismissal of the special leave petition, a review petition was dismissed on 05.12.2017. 7. From this judgment, a three Judges' Bench of this Court, on 09.07.2017, dismissed a special leave petition. Apart from the dismissal of the special leave petition, a review petition was dismissed on 05.12.2017. 7. A reasoned judgment dated 05.02.2019 in 'Hori Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.' noticed in paragraph 12 thereof, that the State, in its counter affidavit filed to a writ petition in the High Court, has placed reliance on the order of the Central Government issued under section 113 of the 2013 Act and contended that the compensation payable to the appellant would be determined on the basis of market value as it was prevalent on 01.01.2014. This being the case, this Court recorded as follows: "20. We, therefore, find no good ground to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when he contended that the date for determining the compensation should be the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. This argument does not have any basis and is, therefore, not acceptable for the simple reason that such date is not provided either in the old Act, 1894 or in the Act, 2013. 21. Indeed, how the compensation is required to be determined and with reference to what date, is provided under the Act and admittedly the date suggested by the learned counsel is not the date prescribed either in the old Act or the new Act. This submission has, therefore, no merit and deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected." 8. Given the fact that the State itself has in other cases relied upon the Central Government's order under Section 113 and stated that compensation in similar cases should not be on the basis of the section 4 notification which could be 10-15 years before, but on the footing, that it should be recorded as 01.01.14 in all cases, we dispose of this interlocutory application by setting aside the Award dated 05.11.2016 and directing the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh, to redetermine the compensation on the footing that the section 4 notification must be deemed to be as on 01.01.2014. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh, shall redetermine the compensation payable within a period of eight weeks from this judgment. 9. The interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.