ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties and also in view of the fact that copy of the Special Civil Application has been served in advance on the learned Assistant Government Pleader who has accepted notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has waived notice, it is taken up for final disposal, since dispute lies in a narrow compass. 2. Petitioners are seeking for a direction to the respondent authorities to complete the acquisition proceedings of the lands belonging to them the possession of which has been taken for the purposes of Dharoi Yojna, within 6 months and they have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay 75% advance compensation as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "New Act") with interest from date of taking possession, till final award is passed. 3. At the outset, Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioners would restrict their claim for grant of interest and consequential benefits for 3 years period from the date of possession of the subject lands were taken. His submission and undertaking is placed on record and only on the basis of the same, this petition is taken up for disposal on main. 4. Petitioners are the owners of various bits of lands bearing Survey Nos. 1018, 1260/2, 435, 1260/1 and 2258, situated at Village : Jaska, Taluka : Vadnagar, District : Mehsana, admeasuring 00-11-68, 00-10-88, 00-08-48, 00-03-68 and 00-02-72 Hector-Are Sq. Mtrs., respectively. Possession of said lands, according to the petitioners, have been taken over by the respondents during the years 1982 - 1983 for the purposes of construction of Dharoi Canal without initiating acquisition proceedings. 5. The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as urged in the petition is to the effect that possession of the lands belonging to petitioners have been taken over without there being any acquisition proceedings and petitioners are deprived of their livelihood and act of respondents are in violation of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and thereby fundamental right as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the respondents. Petitioners have also contended that they had submitted representations for awarding compensation in the year 2014 itself and they were orally informed that on account of new Act having come in to force, their application would be considered and processed as per the provisions of new Act and with the fond hope that compensation would be considered and paid after determination under the new Act, they were awaiting said outcome and on account of there being total inaction on the part of respondents for long number of years, petitioners were perforced to submit one more representation on 16.12.2020 for grant of compensation and said detailed representation having not been considered or no steps having been taken by the respondents, they have approached this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to undertake the acquisition process in respect of the lands already utilized by initiating and concluding the acquisition proceedings and paying compensation to the petitioners. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, who is on advance notice has contended that petitioners are guilty of delay and laches and as such by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Versus Digambar reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683 , he has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and after bestowing on our careful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar, we notice from the records that undisputedly acquisition of certain lands for the purposes of establishing or construction of Dharoi Canal had taken placed way back in the year 1982 - 1983. In the process of construction of the said Canal some of the lands have been acquired including that of the petitioners. For reasons best known acquisition proceedings was not commenced. 8. On advent of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the right to hold property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. For this proposition, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Chandrabhan Tale reported in AIR 1983 SC 803 , Dharm Dutt Versus Union of India reported in AIR 2004 SC 1295 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Maddula Ratnavalli reported in (2007) 6 SCC 81 can be looked up. 9. For this proposition, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Chandrabhan Tale reported in AIR 1983 SC 803 , Dharm Dutt Versus Union of India reported in AIR 2004 SC 1295 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Maddula Ratnavalli reported in (2007) 6 SCC 81 can be looked up. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Limited Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2011) 9 SCC 1 has held that though the right to claim compensation or the obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property is not included in Article 300-A of the Constitution, it is in-built in the Article. Hence, the State which acquires the private property of a private citizen for a public purpose cannot say that no compensation would be paid. It has been further held : “168. Article 300-A proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a person cannot be deprived of his property merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without the support of law made by a competent legislature. The expression “property” in Article 300-A confined not to land alone, it embraces every possible interest recognised by law. 180. Deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 300-A, generally speaking, must take place for public purpose or public interest. The concept of eminent domain which applies when a person is deprived of his property postulates that the purpose must be primarily public and not primarily of private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public. Any law, which deprives a person of his private property for private interest, will be unlawful and unfair and undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial review. But the question as to whether the purpose is primarily public or private, has to be decided by the legislature, which of course should be made known. 182. We have found that the requirement of public purpose is invariably the rule of depriving a person of his property, violation of which is amenable to judicial review. Let us now examine whether the requirement of payment of compensation is the rule after the deletion of Article 31 (2). 189. 182. We have found that the requirement of public purpose is invariably the rule of depriving a person of his property, violation of which is amenable to judicial review. Let us now examine whether the requirement of payment of compensation is the rule after the deletion of Article 31 (2). 189. Requirement of public purpose, for deprivation of a person of his property under Article 300-A, is a precondition, but no compensation or nil compensation or its illusiveness has to be justified by the State on judicially justiciable standards. Measures designed to achieve greater social justice, may call for lesser compensation and such a limitation by itself will not make legislation invalid or unconstitutional or confiscatory. In other words, the right to claim compensation or the obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, it can be inferred in that article and it is for the State to justify its stand on justifiable grounds which may depend upon the legislative policy, object and purpose of the statute and host of other factors.” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi Versus MIDC reported in AIR 2013 SC 565 : (2013) 1 SCC 353 has held that in a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but also under a legal obligation to rehabilitate the persons displaced, if any by such acquisition. 11. Thus, it would emerge from the aforesaid analysis that if the State sought to acquire the property of an individual, it could do so only by making a law and on payment of amount by way of compensation or such expropriation. Infringement of this right, the aggrieved person would have a right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for extraordinary jurisdiction being exercised by this Court to remedy the illegality perpetrated by the State and / or its authority. 12. Keeping the aforesaid salutary principles, enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in mind, when we turn our attention to the facts on hand it would clearly emerge therefrom that certain lands belonging to petitioners have been taken over for purpose of construction of Dharoi Canal and without even initiating acquisition proceedings. Petitioners who claim to be illiterate though not stated in the petition, but canvassed during the course of arguments by Mr. Petitioners who claim to be illiterate though not stated in the petition, but canvassed during the course of arguments by Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to the said effect had approached the authorities by submitting representation in the year 2014 seeking compensation for the land owned by them which had been utilized for purpose of construction of a canal. In other words, petitioners who admittedly claim that lands belonging to them and owned by them was acquired in the year 1982 - 1983 for establishment of Canal, had kept quiet for nearly 30 years i.e. till 2014. For reasons best known, a valiant attempt has been made by Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel to contend that petitioners were being assured by the respondents of representation of petitioners being considered which was submitted in the year 2014, the fact remains from 1982 -1983 till 2014 petitioners kept mum. In other words, they did not raise their little finger. Petitioners having submitted their representation in the year 2014 seems to have again gone into deep sleep till 2020. Even this period from 2014 to 2020 reason for not having perused their grievance before the appropriate authorities has not been explained or in other words pleadings are silent and it is bereft of any plea. This is the second stage of delay that has occurred. Even after submitting the representation in the year 2020 i.e. on 16.12.2020 (Annexure A) till filing of the present petition i.e. till 22.08.2022 there is not even whisper in the petition as to what steps petitioners had taken during this interregnum period of 2 years i.e. on 16.12.2020 till 22.08.2022 (date of filing of the petition). 13. It is no doubt true that mere submission of representation or memorials to the authorities would not revive dead cause of action. In the instant case, illegality which has been committed by the respondents, namely, depriving the petitioners of their valuable land without paying compensation has continued and the fact, that petitioners had not taken any steps would not absolve the authorities from discharging their statutory duties. In the instant case, illegality which has been committed by the respondents, namely, depriving the petitioners of their valuable land without paying compensation has continued and the fact, that petitioners had not taken any steps would not absolve the authorities from discharging their statutory duties. In other words, illegality that had been committed by respondent has been continued to be perpetrated and the very fact that representation dated 06.08.2022 submitted by petitioners had received the attention of the Deputy Collector on 03.09.2022 by forwarding the same to the jurisdictional Executive Engineer i.e. the second respondent herein to take up the issue to process the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation under Act 2 of 2013 is evident from said communication dated 03.09.2022 which emanated from the office of the Deputy Collector to the Executive Engineer. In the normal course, this Court would have dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches by virtue of the proposition of law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Versus K. Thangappan and another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 as well as the judgment rendered in State of Maharashtra (refer to supra), but for the reason that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners having fairly conceded and admitted that petitioners would not be claiming interest beyond the period of 3 years has persuaded us to grant the relief partially so as to protect the interest of the tax payers money which the State would be expending for payment of compensation, if any, payable to the petitioners. 14. It would not be out of context to refer at the cost of repetition that lands belonging to petitioners, as noticed hereinabove, having been taken away without there being acquisition, petitioners would be entitled to reasonable compensation as may be determined by the authorities under the new Act. 15. In view of express provision found in Section 24(1)(a) which mandates that where no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made, then all the provisions of the new Act being applicable to the determination of compensation, the claim of the petitioners for award of compensation necessarily requires to be considered under the provision of the new Act. 16. Hence, we proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) Special Civil Application stands allowed in part. 16. Hence, we proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) Special Civil Application stands allowed in part. (ii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to commence and conclude the acquisition proceedings of the lands of the petitioners as indicated in the communication dated 03.09.2022 by the Deputy Collector to the second respondent expeditiously and at any rate, within an outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and they shall take steps to release the compensation as contemplated under the new Act immediately on passing the award. (iii) It is made clear that while drawing the award, petitioners would not be entitled to the interest and consequential benefits beyond the period of 3 years in view of undertaking given by parties. (iv) No order as to costs. (v) Learned Assistant Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks from today.