JUDGMENT : R.M. Chhaya, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.418/2017, the original petitioner/writ appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The following facts can be culled out from the record of this appeal. The grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Late Nazar Uddin, was the original owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lechas situated at Village Thakuranbari, Mankachar Revenue Circle, District South Salmara Mankachar. The said land was agricultural land and was on periodic lease issued in the name of the grandfather of the present appellant. As can be seen from the record, the land in question along with other lands were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of establishment of Regulated Market at Mankachar under Notification dated 03.08.2001 issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “1894 Act” for the sake of brevity). The said case was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.07/1995-1996. Record shows that total area of 5 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas were acquired for the said public purpose, which included the land belonging to the father of the appellant/original petitioner. The land acquisition proceeding so initiated under the provisions of the 1894 Act culminated into an award passed under the provisions of the 1894 Act, wherein the land belonging to the predecessor of the appellant was valued at Rs.62,450.18. The award came to be approved in accordance with law on 12.01.2005 and the grandfather of the appellant, i.e. the predecessor in title, was paid an amount of Rs.62,450.18 on 19.12.2008. The record clearly indicates that the possession of the land under acquisition was taken over by the acquiring authority and the same was handed over to Dhubri District Regulated Market Committee. Thus, the land in question vested in the said authority free from all encumbrances, as provided under Section 16 of the 1894 Act. 3. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that after taking over possession in the year 2004, the entire land so acquired under the provisions of the 1894 Act for construction of the aforesaid Market was not utilized and part of the acquired land was lying unutilized. 3. It is the case of the appellant/original petitioner that after taking over possession in the year 2004, the entire land so acquired under the provisions of the 1894 Act for construction of the aforesaid Market was not utilized and part of the acquired land was lying unutilized. As can be seen from the record of the appeal, the appellant filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara Mankachar District on 10.02.2015 and another representation on 20.09.2016, interalia, praying for return of the land back to the appellant. As the land so acquired was not returned back to the appellant, the appellant preferred WP(C) No.418/2017. 4. The learned Single Judge relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. -Vs-Administrative Officer & Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 and in Indore Development Authority -Vs-Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and after appreciating the record of the petition and considering the fact that as the possession is already taken over under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the provisions of Section 48 of the 1894 Act would not be applicable. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the acquisition would not lapse as provided under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act” for the sake of brevity) and was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide judgment & order dated 25.02.2022, interalia, holding that the appellant/original petitioner has no vested right to claim return of the acquired land on the ground that it was remained unutilized for about a decade after acquisition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal was filed. 5. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State of Assam and other authorities. 6. Mr. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal was filed. 5. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State of Assam and other authorities. 6. Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, the same vest back in favour of the appellant being the heir of the original owner. Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also contended that as provided under Section 101 of the 2013 Act, the appellant/original owner has a right to get back the possession. On the aforesaid ground, it was contended by Mr. M.U. Mondal that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in law and facts and the appeal deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. 7. Per contra, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam have supported the impugned judgment & order. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that since the land acquisition proceedings are already over and possession was given to the acquiring authority and the possession was taken from the original owner under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, therefore, the provisions of Section 48 of the Act has no application in the facts of the present case. It was also contended that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that under Section 24(2) of the 1894 Act read with Section 101 of the 2013 Act, the appellant is entitled to get back the possession because of non-utilization of the land so acquired, is misconceived and the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner as heir of the original owner has no right to get back the possession. The learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the appeal is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. No other or further submissions, contentions or grounds have been raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 9. The learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the appeal is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. No other or further submissions, contentions or grounds have been raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 9. Having gone through the record of the appeal and on perusal of the judgment & order impugned, it clearly transpires that the land belonging to the grandfather of the appellant/original petitioner being Dag No.251 and Patta No.176 situated at Village Thakuranbari, Mankachar Revenue Circle, District South Salmara Mankachar being agricultural land measuring 2 Bighas 1 Katha 8 Lechas was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of establishment of Regulated Market at Mankachar vide a Notification issued under the provisions of the 1894 Act on 03.08.2001. The award was passed and the grandfather of the appellant was already paid compensation of Rs.62,450.18 and the possession was taken by the authority under Section 16 of the 1894 Act and was handed over to the acquiring body, namely, Dhubri District Regulated Market Committee. 10. Section 16 of the 1894 Act provides as under:- “16. Power to take possession.— When the Collector has made an award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.” 11. Thus, once the possession is taken over by the Land Acquisition Authorities under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, it is not the concern of the land owner whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. As held by the Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran (supra), the owner becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. As held by the Apex Court, the State neither has the requisite power to re-convey the land to the person interested nor can such person claim any right of restoration on any ground whatsoever. Even considering the provisions of Section 48 of the 1894 Act, once the possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the State Government cannot withdraw from any such acquisition. 12. Even considering the provisions of Section 48 of the 1894 Act, once the possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the State Government cannot withdraw from any such acquisition. 12. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides as under:- “(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.” 13. Section 101 of the 2013 Act provides as under:- “101. Return of unutilised land.– When any land, acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, ‘Land Bank’ means a governmental entity that focuses on the conversion of Government owned vacant, abandoned, unutilised acquired lands and tax-delinquent properties into productive use.” 14. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge that in view of the binding decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), if the possession is already taken under the provisions of Section 16 of the 1894 Act and the land having already been put to use, cannot be given back to the original owner. The provisions of Section 101 of the 2013 Act will have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The provisions of Section 101 of the 2013 Act will have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) has observed thus in Paragraphs 363, 364, 366.3 and 367.7:- “Return of Unutilised Land under the 2013 Act 363. It was submitted that Section 101 provides for return of unutilised land under the 2013 Act. Section 101 provides that in case land is not utilised for five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government. Section 101 reads as under: ‘101. Return of unutilised land.—When any land, acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case maybe, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, ‘Land Bank’ means a governmental entity that focuses on the conversion of Government-owned vacant, abandoned, unutilised acquired lands and tax-delinquent properties into productive use.’ 364. Section 24 deals with lapse of acquisition. Section 101 deals with the return of unutilised land. Section 101 cannot be said to be applicable to an acquisition made under the 1894 Act. The provision of lapse has to be considered on its own strength and not by virtue of Section 101 though the spirit is to give back the land to the original owner or owners or the legal heirs or to the Land Bank. Return of lands is with respect to all lands acquired under the 2013 Act as the expression used in the opening part is ‘When any land, acquired under this Act remains unutilised’. Lapse, on the other hand, occurs when the State does not take steps in terms of Section 24(2). The provisions of Section 101 cannot be applied to the acquisitions made under the 1894 Act. Thus, no such sustenance can be drawn from the provisions contained in Section 101 of the 2013 Act. Lapse, on the other hand, occurs when the State does not take steps in terms of Section 24(2). The provisions of Section 101 cannot be applied to the acquisitions made under the 1894 Act. Thus, no such sustenance can be drawn from the provisions contained in Section 101 of the 2013 Act. Five years' logic has been carried into effect for the purpose of lapse and not for the purpose of returning the land remaining unutilised under Section 24(2). 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. 366.7. 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).” 15. Possession of the land was taken over from the original owner in accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act and the same has been handed over to the acquiring body, namely, Dhubri District Regulated Market Committee, and the land is already put to use, Market has been constructed and the business is going on. Only because some lands are unutilized, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/ original petitioner has no vested right to claim return of the acquired land on the said ground. The contention raised by Mr. M.U. Mondal, is, therefore, misconceived and is bereft of any merits. 16. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.