ORDER : 1. Since all the present applications pertain to the same and identical issue, therefore, for the purpose of brevity, the prayer clauses, facts and submissions are being taken from S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 190/2021, while treating the same as a lead case. 1.1 The present misc. applications have been preferred by the applicants/respondents (Union of India & Ors.) claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the present recalling application may kindly be allowed and the judgment/order dated 03.04.2019 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3449/2019 titled as Deep Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. may kindly be recalled and the Writ Petition may kindly be restored to its original number and be heard and decided afresh on merits.” 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3449/2019 (Deep Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. was preferred by the non-applicant/writ petitioner seeking direction to the applicants/respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation, and further, in regard to payment of solatium and compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’), by the competent authority, in lieu of the land acquired. 3. The bone of contention in the present case was that the land was acquired under the National Highway Authority Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’) for a highway project in the Rajsamand District of the State, and thus, the publication of the notification in the official gazette on 31.05.2013 under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 to determine the compensation under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 for acquiring the land admeasuring 108.5076 hectare in the Rajasamand District, would entitle the non-applicant/writ petitioner for compensation under the Act of 2013 or the unamended Act of 1956. 4. This Court, vide the order dated 03.04.2019 (under recall alongwith other orders on the same issue passed in the other writ petitions, wherein the other above-numbered misc. applications have been preferred), while relying upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Man Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4. This Court, vide the order dated 03.04.2019 (under recall alongwith other orders on the same issue passed in the other writ petitions, wherein the other above-numbered misc. applications have been preferred), while relying upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Man Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil writ Petition No.13114/2016, decided on 27.03.2017), and while also taking into account the stand of the applicant/respondent-Union of India that the award has been passed after 31.12.2014, allowed the writ petition, in the same terms, in regard to re-determination of the compensation, as per the Act of 2013. 4. Mr.R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. D.S. Sinha, Mr. B.P. Bohra and Mr. Pooshan appearing on behalf of the applicant/respondent-Union of India submitted that the Regional Office, Jaipur, National Highways Authority of India tendered their approval on the award passed by the competent authority (Land Acquisition) on 19.08.2014, 12.09.2014 and 02.07.2014 and the amount of compensation was deposited with the competent authority (Land Acquisition) on 01.09.2014, 25.09.2014 and 09.07.2014. 4.1 He further submitted that in the matters relating to the lands of non-applicant/writ petitioner and the deposition of the amount of compensation, as determined by the competent authority (Land Acquisition) under the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 were clearly before the stipulated date (01.01.2015) on which the provisions of the Act of 2013 were made applicable upon the Acts mentioned in its Schedule-IV (which includes Act of 1956) and the non-applicant/writ petitioner was entitled to the compensation only under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and not under the Act of 2013, as even the amount was deposited by the applicants/respondents in the accounts of CALA much before the said cut off date of 01.01.2015; unfortunately, these facts could not be brought in the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing in the matter on the relevant date. 4.2 He also submitted that the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in Man Singh’s case (supra), where due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel appearing on behalf of NHAI and MoRTH, it was wrongly conceded that the award was passed after 01.01.2015, and thereafter, an order came to be passed for computation of amount of the award as per the Act of 2013, which may lead to an enormous loss to the public exchequer must not suffer due to the inadvertent mistake on the part of the advocates appearing on behalf of NHAI and MoRTH, conceding certain facts which are contrary to record and in the interest of justice and to save the public exchequer from such enormous loss, the order dated 03.04.2019 must be recalled. 4.3 Learned Solicitor General relied upon the following judgments: (a) Union of India Vs. Sita Kant S. Dubhashi, (2020) 3 SCC 297 ; (b) Asha Vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 ; (c) Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar Vs. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 150 ; (d) Rafiq Vs. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 ; (e) Smt. Lachi Tewari Vs. Director of Land Record, AIR 1997 SCW 4229 ; and (f) State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Mohnot, (2014) 14 SCC 77 . 5. Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Sisodia alongwith Mr. Ankit Prakash Singh & Mr. Priyansh Arora appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/writ petitioner submitted that the order was passed on 03.04.2019 by this Court, but the instant misc. application was filed on 07.04.2021 i.e. after the delay of two years (other applications above-numbered were also filed belatedly) and no satisfactory reason has been given for such delay. 5.1 He further submitted that at the time of arguments in Man Singh’s case (supra), the learned counsel for the respondent-Department i.e. MoRTH and NHAI appeared and the reply was filed in the case and it was admitted by the applicant/respondent that it is not disputed that the award is being passed by CALA after 31.12.2014. 5.1 He further submitted that at the time of arguments in Man Singh’s case (supra), the learned counsel for the respondent-Department i.e. MoRTH and NHAI appeared and the reply was filed in the case and it was admitted by the applicant/respondent that it is not disputed that the award is being passed by CALA after 31.12.2014. 5.2 He also submitted that the applicant/respondent has wrongly mentioned the fact that the land of the non-applicant was acquired after the gazette notification under Section 3A dated 28.12.2012 and under Section 3D dated 04.10.2013, whereas the land of the non-applicant was acquired vide gazette notification under Section 3-A dated 15.02.2013 and under section 3D dated 31.05.2013. 5.3 He further submitted that though the consolidated estimate was prepared by CALA and sent to MoRTH before 01.01.2015, but further after approval from the MoRTH, the CALA made an individual award wherein calculation of the land and amount of the compensation was assessed which was to be paid to the writ petitioner/non-applicant after 01.01.2015 which were lying with the CALA and other authorities and the copies of the individual award was not served to the non-applicant/writ petitioner, however, later on compensation was deposited after the enforcement of the Act of 2013, as per old norms, clearly showing the delay on the part of applicant and also as stated by the applicants themselves in the misc. application, the amount was deposited in the account of the competent authority but not in the account of the non-applicant/writ petitioner. 5.4 He also submitted that the definition of the award is not mentioned in the Act but it is presumed that the calculation of the compensation for individual land acquisition under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 and in pursuance of that CALA has prepared the detailed individual award (annexed with the writ petition), which is after 31.12.2014. 5.5 He further submitted that it is not admitted that the compensation was deposited in the petitioner’s account prior to 01.01.2015, after declaring the award the CALA directed the concerned Tehsildar for verification and procuring the individual documents i.e. affidavit, Aadhar Card, Bank Passbook copy, PAN card etc., that too, took a long time months together writ petition ran pillar to post for submitting the documents but the concerned Patwari never bothered to expedite the process for paying the compensation and no interest was paid for delay in paying the compensation. 5.6 He also submitted that though the estimate of the compensation was decided by the Department before 01.01.2015, but the award was prepared after 01.01.2015 and the compensation deposited in the individual account after the enforcement of the Act of 2013, and the individual award was also not communicated to the petitioner and only the compensation was directly credited into their account and also the estimate was also not in the form of award, it was only the communication between MoRTH and the CALA. 5.7 Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) The Director General of Police Vs. Ramswaroop (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1656/2019, decided at Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 09.11.2021); (b) Union of India Vs. Central Tibetan Schools Admin. & Ors. (SLP (Civil) diary No.19846/2020, decided on 04.02.2021); (c) State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bherulal, 2020 4 JLJ 315 ; (d) State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Prasad & Ors. 2015 11 ADJ 248 ; (e) Asit Kumar Kar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2009 Supp AIR (SC) 282; (f) Rashid Khan Pathan Vs. in Re: Vijay Kurla ors. 2020 0 AIR (SC) 4070; (g) Sri Budhia Swain & Ors. Vs. Gopinath Deb & Ors., 1999 0 AIR (SC) 2089; (h) Ram Chand Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., 2004 0 AIR (SC) 4096 and; (i) Sow. Chandra Kanta & Anr. Vs. Sheik Habib, 1975 0 AIR (SC) 1500. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that in the limited scope of the application to recall the order, this Court ought not to go into merits of the case again; moreover, the order under recall was passed while relying upon the judgment rendered in Man Singh’s case (supra), and the said judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court had already attained finality. 7. At the cost of repetition, the record and the rival submissions of the parties broadly indicate that the compensation proceedings herein, in lieu of land acquisition, were initiated under the Act of 1956, but the award could not be conclusively declared till 31.12.2014, which was considered Ministry of Road & Transport to be the date of application of the Act of 2013. The compensation in respect of majority of the lands as notified under Section 3A notification was not deposited in the account of the beneficiaries before 31.12.2014, and therefore, all the beneficiaries were rightly declared to be entitled for compensation in accordance with the Act of 2013. 8. Learned Additional Solicitor General has shown certain proceedings prior to 31.12.2014 but they do not indicate final award having been passed before 31.12.2014. Thus, in the narrow scope of the application, no cause for making any interference is made out. 9. Consequently, the present misc. applications are dismissed.