1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, direction has been sought for to treat the entire land under the acquisition proceeding within the fold i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the landed property in question has been acquired in the year 2006 by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but for one or the other, he could not be able to make any objection, therefore, award has been prepared in the name of one Ranjit Ram who has claimed himself to be title holder of the landed property in question and thereafter award has been prepared in his name and in consequence thereof, monetary benefit has been disbursed in his favour but the petitioner, after knowing about the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has raised the objection in the year 2015 and thereafter a thorough inquiry has been conducted in course thereof, it has been found that the Ranjit Ram has committed mischief by way fraudulent method, he has claimed himself to the title holder of the property in question and has been able to get the amount of compensation, therefore, the matter has been handed over to the police for its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., thereafter, FIR has been instituted against him. The petitioner thereafter, has approached to this Court for direction for initiating a de-novo under the Act, 2013 and to make payment of compensation as provided under the aforesaid provision of the Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that since the award has not been prepared in his name, therefore, it will be presumed that there is no proceeding initiated under the Act, 1894, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, a fresh proceeding is to be initiated and thereafter, award as also the rehabilitation order is required to be passed as provided under the provision of the Act, 2013, have approached the authority and when it has not been acceded to, this writ petition has been filed. 4. 4. While on the other hand, the State respondent as well as learned counsel appearing for the NTPC have submitted that the case of the petitioner is not to be looked in view of the provision of the Act, 2013 for the reason that the proceeding has been initiated for acquisition of the landed property in question by issuing notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sometime in the year, 2006 by its wide publication in the Daily Newspaper but the petitioner has not raised any objection as contemplated under the provision of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and rather he has sat silent fairly for a long period and when award has been prepared in the name of Ranjit Ram and money has been disbursed, he has made an objection before the competent authority and thereafter on inquiry it has been found that some mischief has been committed by Ranjit Ram and accordingly, the authorities have taken decision to disburse the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner and as such there is no question of applicability of the Act, 2013 in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It has further been submitted that applicability of the Act, 2013 will only come if there will be compliance of ingredients as contemplated under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 which stipulates that if an award has been passed about five years or more than the period of five years from the date of enactment and the amount of compensation has not been paid as also physical possession of the land has not been taken by acquisition authority, then, the proceeding will be deemed to be under the provision of Act, 2013 but here this is not the case, rather herein the award has been prepared although not in the name of the petitioner but in the name of one Ranjit Ram and that too after issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and in consequence thereto, award has been prepared in favour of the said Ranjit Ram, who has received the amount of compensation, hence it is not a case of no award rather it is the case of the preparation of award in the name of the wrong person. There is an error committed by the authority while preparing the award and as such the same can be looked into under the provision of Section 13-A of the Act, 1894 which stipulates a provision for making necessary correction in award which is clerical in nature. 5. Submission has been made that the error crept up in the award is clerical in nature for the reason that notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 has been issued, having been published in the Daily Newspaper for its wide publication but the petitioner has not objected within the period as provided under the provision of the Act, 1894 and as such it is not a case of the petitioner that there is no notice under Section 4 rather when once notice has been published, it was incumbent upon one or the other title holder to make objection but however, due to fraud committed by the other person who is claiming to be the title holder of the land, the award has been prepared, so it is a case of clerical error crept up in the award. 6. In response, Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that it cannot be said to be error which is clerical in nature. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court before entering into the factual dispute involved in this case, thinks it proper to discuss about the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1894 vis-a-viz of the Act, 2013. 8. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been enacted making it effective from 02.02.1894, the objection and reason was to assess the valuation of land for compensating the title holder and therefore relevant provisions have been made for providing an opportunity before acquisition keeping some exception with respect to the compulsory/urgent acquisition for that a provision of Section 4 has been enacted which contains provision of publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon. 9. 9. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that the land in any locality is to be needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a Company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality, the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. 10. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the publication of the notification in the two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language was not originally in the act rather it has been inserted by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, 1894 with effect from 24.09.1984, the reasons being that when the land is being acquired, it is incumbent upon the land acquisition authority to apprise about the same to the concerned title holder. Initially, it was to be notified in the Official Gazette but the legislation has thought that the Official Gazette is not within the reach of public in general, therefore, the whole purpose of notification will not be achieved, therefore, insertion of publication of notification in two daily newspapers has been incorporated with the aforesaid provision, meaning would be that the same is to bring to the notice of public in general so that, if there is any objection or grievance, the same be made before the competent authority. 11. The further reason is that in Section 5-A, in case any objection would be made the same will be decided by providing an opportunity of hearing to the interested parties who would be entitled to claim the compensation along with the interest, thereafter final declaration would come under the provision of Section 6 to the effect that the land is required for a public purpose and it is to be notified in the Official Gazette with respect to its notification again by its publication in the daily newspaper. 12. 12. Then, the provision of Section 7 will come which confers power upon the Collector to take order for acquisition, then, by virtue of Section 8, the land to be marked out, measured and planned and then the Section 9, wherein, notice to persons interested as contemplated under the provision of Section 9 will be issued to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him and thereafter, the interested person, if so wishes, may appear personally or by agent before the Collector and to state the nature of the respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests and thereafter after determining the claim, the award would be passed under the provision of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, 1894. 13. Section 13-A which has been inserted with effect from 24.09.1984 containing a provision of correction of clerical errors etc., wherein the Collector may, at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under Section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter, thereafter, Section 17 which stipulates about special powers in cases of urgency and the other sections thereafter. 14. 14. The factual aspect involved in this case is that a notice has been issued on 25.05.2006 strictly in terms of the provision contained under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, thereafter, steps have been taken as provided under the statute, the award has been prepared but here in the instant case, no award has been prepared in the name of the petitioner rather in the name of one Ranjit Ram and in consequence thereof, the amount has been disbursed in favour of Ranjit Ram on 26.10.2010 and it is only thereafter the petitioner has approached before the competent authority sometime in the year 2015 before the Collector to bring to his notice that actually, he is the title holder of the land but the compensation has been disbursed in favour of one Ranjit Ram. 15. The competent authority, after verifying the factual aspect, has directed to institute a criminal case and in course of the investigation it has come to the notice that the Ranjit Ram was not actually the title holder of the land rather by committing mischief and fraud, has managed to enter his name by way of title holder of the land and got the compensation. 16. The authority in order to rectify, has issued a direction upon the said Ranjit Ram to deposit the amount, the said amount has been deposited in the State exchequer by Ranjit Ram and now a criminal case is going against him. 17. The grievance, now raised by the petitioner, that award has not been prepared in his name, although the land has been acquired and therefore, after coming into effect of Section 13 of the Act, 1894, a de-novo proceeding is to be initiated. 18. This Court has gone across the provision of the Act, 2013 more particularly the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 which contemplates the applicability of the new Act, therefore, the said provision needs to be referred hereinbelow:- “24. 18. This Court has gone across the provision of the Act, 2013 more particularly the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 which contemplates the applicability of the new Act, therefore, the said provision needs to be referred hereinbelow:- “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. 19. 19. It is evident from the Section 24 of the Act, 2013 which speaks that in case of land acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 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 where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceeding shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed, while sub-section 2 of Section 24 stipulates that in case of land acquisition proceeding 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. Thus, Section 24 of sub-section 1 of the Act, 2013 speaks about the two situations that where no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of this Act, 2013 will apply and where an award under Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provision of the Act, 1894, as if the said Act has not been repealed, meaning thereby, the moot question of applicability of Section 24 of sub-section 1 would be that in case of no award then only the applicability of the Act, 2013 will come, if in case of an award the entire acquisition proceeding will govern through the old Act of the year, 1894 but sub-section 2 of Section 24 comes out with a situation, where an award has been passed and if the award is 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 afresh proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. Thus, sub-section 2 provides exception to sub-section 1 regarding the applicability of the Act, 2013 which will arise only in case, 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 under the light of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. 20. The factual aspect involved in this case has been examined by this Court since, prayer of the petitioner is that the new Act, 2013, will be applicable. 21. Admittedly, it is not a case of no award rather there is an award passed in the year 2010 and it is also not a case that compensation amount has not been paid rather the compensation amount has not been paid although the award has been passed not in the name of the petitioner but in the name of one Ranjit Ram but as has been submitted by the petitioner that the physical possession has not yet been taken, therefore, the new Act of the year 2013, is applicable. 22. This Court after going across the provision of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 is not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is for the reason that it is not a case of no award rather it is a case of no award but award is there in the name of other person and it is also not a case of non-payment of the amount of compensation rather the admitted case of the petitioner is that the amount of compensation has not been paid in his favour rather in favour of Ranjit Ram. 23. The question herein is that if any mischief has been committed by way of fraudulent method either by the beneficiaries claiming to be interested over the land which has been acquired and any advantage has been taken by him whether the State exchequer will put on burden on that account, burdening of the State exchequer would arise the money, the provision of the Act, 2013 would be made applicable, since the Act, 2013 stipulates for the quantum of amount of compensation which is to be tested on the basis of the market rate along with the scope of rehabilitation as provided under the provision of the new Act. 24. 24. Admittedly, the authorities, after knowing about the fraud has instituted an FIR against the said Ranjit Ram and now he is facing rigour of the criminal case. He has also refunded the entire amount which has been deposited in the State exchequer. 25. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that wide publication of notice as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 has been issued since, he has annexed the copy of the paper publication in the Daily Newspaper i.e., “Dainik Jagran”. Now the question is that when there is no laches on the part of the State authorities since the State authorities come out with wide publication of notification as contemplated under the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and if the petitioner has not chosen to avail the said opportunity rather he has kept himself silent for a period of about a decade i.e., from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 till the year 2015, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not vigilant about his right and all of a sudden after a decade, he has made an objection before the Collector after the award having been prepared and the amount of compensation has been paid as such when the petitioner himself was not vigilant about his right, can he be entitled to get the benefit, which he is claiming in this writ petition, answer would certainly be negative as because, if the litigant is not vigilant about the right and any mischief has been committed by any third party, the State exchequer cannot be overburdened. The matter would have been different if there was no notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 or the acquisition was under the provision of Section 17 but that is not the case herein. 26. Therefore, on the basis of the factual aspect and the legal position as discussed hereinabove, it is not a case, such in the nature wherein direction can be passed for initiation of fresh proceeding by taking aid of the provision of the Act, 2013 and therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is having no merit accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 27. 27. However, since it is the admitted case of the State as well as the NTPC that they are not disputing the title of the petitioner over the land in question which has been acquired and now in the possession of National Thermal Power Corporation but in that situation merely on account of the fact that the money has been refunded back by Ranjit Ram and if this Court will pass any direction upon the beneficiaries to make the payment of amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner without making necessary correction in the award, it would amount to allowing the illegality and it is settled position of law that any illegality is not to be perpetuated. 28. In that view of the matter, it would be just and proper to direct the State authority to make necessary correction after verifying of record pertaining to title of the petitioner and pay amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner as has been determined and decided by the authority during the relevant time. 29. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.