JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. W.A.No.172 of 2019 is preferred against a judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24548 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 , allowed the writ petition holding and directing as follows: “7. In the instant case also though the Sub-Collectorcum-Land Acquisition Officer passed award as long back as on 23.12.2006, as per the said award the authorities kept the compensation amount in revenue deposit. In view of the mandatory provisions of the new legislation 2013 and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, such revenue deposit would not amount to payment of amount of compensation to the petitioner and in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned proceedings, which culminated in the award dated 23.12.2006 cannot stand for judicial scrutiny, and the same are liable to be invalidated 8.For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, which culminated in passing of award by the SubCollector, Gudur-cum-Land Acquisition Officer vide proceedings Rc.No.A 2688/2006 (Award No.34/2007-07) are hereby quashed. However, it is open for the respondent-authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, if they choose to do so, for acquiring the land. No order as to costs. As a sequel, W.P.M.Ps. if any shall stand closed.” 2. W.A.No.167 of 2019 is preferred against a judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.24547 of 2006, disposing of the writ petition in similar terms as in W.P.No.24548 of 2006. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is same and for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, they are relying on the factual matrix as presented in W.P.No.24548 of 2006. 4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the District Collector, Nellore, had issued a Notification No.RCG5/4109/2006 dated 22.07.2006 for acquisition of lands for constructing an Industrial Park by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. The Notification included the writ petitioner’s lands admeasuring Ac.4.26 cents in Sy.No.318/1 and Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.331/13-A of Menakur Village, Nayudupet Mandal, Nellore District. 4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the District Collector, Nellore, had issued a Notification No.RCG5/4109/2006 dated 22.07.2006 for acquisition of lands for constructing an Industrial Park by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. The Notification included the writ petitioner’s lands admeasuring Ac.4.26 cents in Sy.No.318/1 and Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.331/13-A of Menakur Village, Nayudupet Mandal, Nellore District. The plea put forward was that public purpose involved in the Notification is too remote in nature. 5. Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned single Judge, following the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra), had, in essence, opined that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed on account of non-payment of compensation to the writ petitioners. However, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra) was overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 , and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in law. He has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraphs 231, 232, 365 and 366 of the judgment in Indore Development Authority(supra) and contends that deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) takes place only when an award under Section 11 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) was made five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 but possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. But, in the instant case, there is no dispute that possession has been taken and that apart, compensation has also been paid and, therefore, no purpose will be served by remanding the matter back to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration. Relying upon the additional affidavit filed on 19.02.2021 by the appellant,Mr. J.Ugranarasimha stated that an amount of Rs.87,87,00,000/- was deposited with the District Collector, Nellore, towards land acquisition/alienation to an extent of Acs.4556.70, out of which Rs.10,00,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque dated 02.11.2006, Rs.31,00,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque dated 27.12.2006, Rs.36,40,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque dated 10.01.2007, Rs.5,00,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque dated 13.06.2008, Rs.3,00,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque dated 10.07.2008 and Rs.2,47,00,000/- was deposited vide cheque dated 01.09.2009. 6. 6. Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Anasuya, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, conceded that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority(supra), land acquisition proceedings did not lapse. However, so far as payment of compensation is concerned, it is contended by him that the writ petitionersare entitled to compensation in terms of the Act of 2013. He refers to Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and Section 12 of the Act of 1894. Drawing attention of the Court to the Award passed, he submits that the writ petitioners had not attended the proceedings at the time when the Award was passed and in such a situation, procedure prescribed under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 as well asRule 6 of the Rules for the payment of compensation for land taken up under the Land Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894 (for short, ‘the Rules’) has to be followed, butthe same was not followed. Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad has also drawn the attention of the Court to an Interlocutory Application filed before the learned single Judge seeking amendment of the writ petition, which is annexed at Page 8 of I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.A.No.172 of 2019 filed on 10.09.2020, to contend that the writ petitioner did not receive any notice and, as such, could not attend the enquiry. He submits that a duty is cast upon the officer to issue a notice to the persons interested to appear personally or by a representative, by giving a certain date to receive the compensation awarded to them. However, in the instant case, no such notice was issued. He submits that a duty is cast upon the officer to issue a notice to the persons interested to appear personally or by a representative, by giving a certain date to receive the compensation awarded to them. However, in the instant case, no such notice was issued. He submits that as the revenue deposit was made without issuing any notice to the writ petitioners, the amount deposited as revenue deposit cannot be construed as compensation amount in the eye of law and, therefore, the writ petitionersare entitled to be paid compensation in terms of the Act of 2013.Referring to the Endorsement dated 02.09.2020 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Naidupet, (available at Page 6 of additional material papers filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.A.No.172 of 2019), wherein it is stated that no details of keeping the award amount in Revenue Deposits are available in the office records, learned senior counsel contended that the very fact as to whether any deposit was made is itself doubtful and, therefore, the matter requires to be remanded back to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on instructions, submits that sufficient amount is available for making payment to the writ petitioners in terms of the Award. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra) was considering Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Section 24 reads as follows: “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 provisos 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.” 9. It is appropriate to extract paragraphs 231, 232, 365 and 366 of the judgment in Indore Development Authority(supra): 231. Rules and the Standing Orders are binding on the authorities concerned and they have to follow them. They deposit the amounts in court only when a reference (for higher compensation) is sought, not otherwise. Even if a person refuses to accept it and the amount is deposited in court or even it is not tendered, only higher interest follows under Section 34. Once Rules have prevailed since long and even if it is assumed that deposit in court is mandatory on being prevented from payment as envisaged under Section 31(1), the only liability to make the payment of higher interest is fastened upon the State. The liability to pay the amount with interest would subsist. When amounts are deposited in court, there would occur a procedural irregularity and the adverse consequence envisaged is under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. The consequence of non-deposit in the court is that the amount of the landowner cannot be invested in the government securities as envisaged under Sections 32 and 33 of the 1894 Act, in which interest is not more 15%. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the landowners rather they stand to gain and still payment is safe as it is kept in the court. Thus, no prejudice is caused to the landowners rather they stand to gain and still payment is safe as it is kept in the court. We have already held that there is a distinction between the expression “paid” and “deposited”, thus the amount being deposited as per Rules in the treasury or as per the Standing Orders considering the scheme of Section 31 read with Section 34 of the 1894 Act, which are in pari materia with Sections 77 and 80 of the 2013 Act. We are of the considered opinion that acquisition cannot be invalidated, only higher compensation would follow in case amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings, all the beneficiaries would be entitled for higher compensation as envisaged in the proviso to Section 24(2). 232. Deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the 1894 Act, as it ensures higher rate of interest than any other government securities. Their money is safe and credited in the earmarked quantified amount and can be made available for disbursement to him/them. There is no prejudice caused and every infraction of law would not vitiate the act. 365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 ] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [ (2018) 3 SCC 412 ], the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment. 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” 10. Going by the words and expressions as appearing in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra), it was held that where an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013, 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 been lapsed. In other words, in either of the cases, namely, physical possession of the land not being taken over or the compensation not being paid, deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceedings will result. 11. In Indore Development Authority(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. In other words, only when possession has not been taken over and compensation has not been paid, the same would result in deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceedings. 12. Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 requires the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interestedas are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 provides that on making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested/entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the sub-section (2). Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 provides that on making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested/entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the sub-section (2). Section 31(2) provides that if the persons entitled do not give consent to receive it, or if there is no person competent to alienate the land, or if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 would be submitted. 13. Rule 6 of the Rules reads as follows: “6. In giving notice of the award under Section 12(2) and tendering payment under Section 31(1) to such of the persons interested as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made, the officer shall require them to appear personally or by representatives by a certain date to receive payment of the compensation awarded to them intimating also that no interest will be allowed to them if they fail to appear.If they do not appear and do not apply for a reference to the civil court under Section 18, the officer shall, after any further endeavour to secure their attendance that may seem desirable, cause the amounts due to be paid in the treasury as revenue deposit payable to the persons to whom they are respectively due, and vouched for in the accompanying Form (marked E). The officer shall also give notice to the payees of such deposits, specifying the treasury in which the deposits have been made. In the Collector’s accounts the amounts deposited in the treasury will at once be charged of as public works expenditure, and when the persons interested under the award ultimately claim payment the amounts will be paid to them in the same manner as ordinary revenue deposits. The officer should, as far as possible, arrange to make the payments due in or near the village to which the payees belong in order that the number of undisbursed sums to be placed in deposit on account of non-attendance may be reduced to a minimum. The officer should, as far as possible, arrange to make the payments due in or near the village to which the payees belong in order that the number of undisbursed sums to be placed in deposit on account of non-attendance may be reduced to a minimum. Whenever payment is claimed through a representative, whether before or after deposit of the amount awarded, such representative must show legal authority for receiving the compensation on behalf of his principal.” 14. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule goes to show that while giving notice of the award under Section 12(2) and tendering payment under Section 31(1) to such of the persons interested as were not present personally or by the representatives when the award was made, the officer shall require them to appear personally or by representatives by a certain date to receive payment of the compensation awarded to them, intimating also that no interest will be allowed to them, if they fail to appear. If they do not appear and do not apply for a reference to the civil court under Section 18, the officer shall, after any further endeavour to secure their attendance that may seem desirable, cause the amounts deposited in the treasury as revenue deposit payable to the persons to whom they are respectively due, and vouched for in the accompanying Form. 15. On the basis of the aforesaid Rule, it was contended by Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad that notice as contemplated therein was not given and straight away the compensation amount was kept in revenue deposit and as such, the same does not constitute compensation amount. 16. There was no pleading in the writ petition regarding the Collector not issuing notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 and Rule 6 of the Rules. It was sought to be contended by Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad that the writ petition was amended incorporating averments and in paragraph 4 of the amendment application, reference was made to notice not being issued under Rule 6 of the Rules. A perusal of the said amendment application would, however, go to show that though some averments to that extent were made, amendment was sought for only in the prayer portion. Amendment that was prayed for reads as follows: “7. A perusal of the said amendment application would, however, go to show that though some averments to that extent were made, amendment was sought for only in the prayer portion. Amendment that was prayed for reads as follows: “7. It is submitted that at the time of filing Writ Petition, no award was passed and as we came to know through the counter filed by the respondents which was served on 3-12-2012 that the award was passed on 9-1-2007, it is necessary to question the award by making suitable amendment in the prayer as given below, in the end of the prayer after “at Menakuru Village of Nayudupeta Revenue Mandal, district Nellore” by adding “and to consequentially set aside the award dated 9-1-2007 passed in Rc.No.A 2685/2006 (Award No. 48/2006-07) by the Sub-Collector’s Office, Gudur,” Hence it is prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners herein to amend the prayer in the Writ Petition after “at Menakuru Village of Nayudupeta Revenue Mandal, district Nellore” by adding “and to consequentially set aside the award dated 9-1-2007 passed in Rc.No. A 2685/2006 (Award No. 48/2006-07) by the Sub-Collector’s Office, Gudur,” and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.” 17. It is not necessary for us to dilate on the aspect of amendment that was prayed for since it is crystal clear from the Award itself that the compensation payable for the land was kept in revenue deposit as the writ petitioner had not attended for award enquiry conducted at Sub-Collector’s office, Gudur, which necessarily and logically would indicate that before keeping the compensation amount in revenue deposit, no notice was issued to the writ petitioners. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority(supra) had laid down that acquisition cannot be invalidated and only higher compensation would follow in case amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings, all the beneficiaries would be entitled for higher compensation as envisaged in the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that amount had not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that amount had not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also laid down that deposit in treasury in place of deposit in Court causes no prejudice to the land owner or any other stakeholder and further held that every infraction of law would not vitiate the act. 19. Though it is seen that no notice was issued to the writ petitioners before compensation amount was deposited by way of revenue deposit, the same would not result in compensation being payable in terms of the Act of 2013. 20. In view of the above discussion, while setting aside the orders under appeal, we do not deem it necessary to remand the cases to the learned single Judge for fresh disposal. 21. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are allowed. We direct that compensation amount deposited shall be paid to the writ petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.