ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, C.J. 1. By means of the present writ-petitions, the petitioners (24 in numbers) seek a writ of mandamus commending the respondents to pay compensation by making an award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the lands belonging to the petitioners herein, as they were utilised for the purpose of canal without any statutory land acquisition proceeding in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. The statement in the writ-petition is that for the purpose of construction of Ladol distributary canal of Dharoi canal passing through Village: Gavada, land acquisition proceedings appear to have been initiated in the year 2009 and thereafter, land acquisition cases No. 27/2011 and 28/2011 were registered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The possession of respective lands of the petitioners have been taken by the respondent No.3 namely the Executive Engineer, Dharoi main canal division, Dharoi Dam, Dharoi, Taluka: Satlasana, District: Mehsana. The respondent No.3 had also started digging work of the canal in question by giving an initial amount towards lump-sum compensation with assurance that the final compensation would be determined after declaration of the land acquisition award. The date of acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as indicated in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the writ-petition are 6.2.2012 and 23.5.2013. It is further stated in Para-9 of the writ-petition that after issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no further proceedings appear to have been undertaken. 3. We may note that writ-petition is filed after a period of 10 years in the month of August, 2023, with the assertion that the petitioners have got information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by moving an application dated 14.11.2022, wherein the details in the form of hand written chart has been provided stating that part payment of compensation to the land holders of Land Acquisition Case Nos. 27/2011 and 28/2011. A copy of the communication dated 12.12.2022 sent by respondent No.3 in response to application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 moved by the writ petitioners is also appended at Annexure "C" to the writ-petition. 4. 27/2011 and 28/2011. A copy of the communication dated 12.12.2022 sent by respondent No.3 in response to application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 moved by the writ petitioners is also appended at Annexure "C" to the writ-petition. 4. It seems that a written instruction was supplied by the learned AGP on 8.11.2023 before this Court to the effect that a decision has been taken at appropriate level to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings of the lands in question, i.e. not to go ahead with the construction of the canal, the purpose for which the lands in question were acquired vide notifications dated 6.2.2012 and 23.5.2013. Noticing the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was recorded that as per the contentions in the written instructions, the petitioners have themselves levelled the land in question and they are utilising the same for agricultural operations. It was further observed therein that the petitioners are entitled for compensation for the damages caused to their lands during the course of the proceedings for the acquisition drawn by virtue of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even if the State Government has decided to withdraw from acquisition by virtue of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The response of the Collector has, thus, been sought. 5. Pursuant to the said order, the affidavit dated 6.1.2024 was filed by the Collector stating that initially some exercise of digging of lands in question was conducted, but later it was decided that the lands in question were not needed for the purpose for which they were acquired. The stand of the Collector in the aforesaid affidavit is that amongst the petitioners, there are certain land owners, whose lands had neither been proposed to be acquired nor dug up. 6. In the order dated 01.04.2024 this Court has noted that the petitioners are claiming compensation for damages only for those lands which were part of the acquisition proceedings included in the declaration notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, published on 23.5.2013. The direction has, thus, been issued to the Collector to conduct the exercise for determination of compensation for the damages caused to the land holders namely the petitioners under the directions issued in the order dated 8.11.2023. 7. The direction has, thus, been issued to the Collector to conduct the exercise for determination of compensation for the damages caused to the land holders namely the petitioners under the directions issued in the order dated 8.11.2023. 7. This Court has also noted the stand of the Collector that the exercise for determination of compensation has already been initiated. This Court has further proceeded to observe in the order dated 1.4.2024 that after the declaration notification dated 23.5.2013, the exercise of making of the award under Section 26 of the Act, 2013 has not been concluded for payment of the compensation to the land holders whose lands had been sought to be acquired. It was clarified that while making award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is required to take into account that this acquisition is not a permanent acquisition and the government has decided to return the lands to the land owners. The determination of the compensation / damages caused to the land owners would include the elements of compensation which shall be for the damages caused to the land owners for deprivation of their agricultural land from acquisition till the date of delivery of possession. 8. However, the fact remains that at the time of passing of the order dated 1.4.2024, a material aspect of the matter, i.e. the fact that Sections 4 and 6 notifications for acquisition of lands in question were quashed in a writ-petition filed by the land owners of Villages Ladol and Gavada, as stated in Para-4.4 of the affidavit dated 6.1.2024 had not been brought to the notice of the Court. 9. We, therefore, find that the direction in the order dated 1.4.2024 to the effect that award under Section 26 of the Act, 2013 was in ignorance of the factual statement made in the affidavit for quashing of the acquisition notifications. 10. We further proceed to take note of the averments made in the affidavit of the Collector, Mehsana dated 6.1.2024, wherein a categorical statement of facts have been made in Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.7 to the effect that for construction of Ladol distributary, the Notifications dated 17.3.2011 and 25.8.2012 were published. The construction of the canal from chainage extending from 0 to 3300 mtrs was completed, which fell within the boundaries of Villages Kamalpur and Sardarpur. The construction of the canal from chainage extending from 0 to 3300 mtrs was completed, which fell within the boundaries of Villages Kamalpur and Sardarpur. The lands falling within the boundaries of the proposed acquisition project from the chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs situated in the Village Gavada was only dug-up. No construction, however, had been commenced upon the lands falling within the chainage of proposed Ladol distributary extending from 3300 mts to 15415 mtrs, situated at Village Gavada. It is categorically stated in Para-4.3 of the affidavit dated 6.1.2024 of the Collector, Mehsana that the lands of the petitioners are situated in the Village Gavada and fall within the proposed land acquisition project for construction of Ladol distributary chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs. It is further stated that a Special Civil Application No. 10306 of 2013 had been filed by some Villagers, wherein vide judgment and order dated 25.9.2013, the acquisition notification dated 29.4.2012 and 23.5.2013 issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 pertaining to Village Ladol, Taluka Vijapur, District Mehsana for the purpose of construction of Dharoi Canal had been quashed. 11. Be that as it may, there is a categorical statement in Para-4.6 to the effect that a decision was taken by the respondent-authorities to lay down pipelines into the lands in question falling within proposed canal having its chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs, however, the land owners had objected to the process of laying down the pipelines on such lands and also challenged the said decision by preferring Special Civil Application No. 9797 of 2020, which is pending adjudication till date. However, laying of pipelines in the land falling within the proposed Ladol distributary canal having its chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs, has also been withdrawn, because of the agitation of the land owners. 12. Further in Para-4.7 of the affidavit of the Collector, Mehsana dated 6.1.2024, a categorical statement has been made that the land owners had filled up their lands which had been dug up by the respondent authorities after issuance of Sections 4 and 6 notifications and have also started the cultivation and farming activities in their respective lands. 13. 12. Further in Para-4.7 of the affidavit of the Collector, Mehsana dated 6.1.2024, a categorical statement has been made that the land owners had filled up their lands which had been dug up by the respondent authorities after issuance of Sections 4 and 6 notifications and have also started the cultivation and farming activities in their respective lands. 13. With these averments, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the Collector, it has further been stated that a decision has been taken to withdraw from the land acquisition proceedings and the State Government through its Narmada Water Supply and Water Resources, Kalpsar Department had granted permission to the Superintending Engineer, SujlamSuflam Circle-II, Mehsana vide communication dated 30.9.2023, to issue a tender for filling up those lands that had been dug up and yet remained unfilled. It was, thus, contended that the process of filling up the land which had been dug up, would be completed by the entity in whose favour the work order has already been issued. There is a categorical assertion that a decision has been taken not to proceed further for the proposed Ladol distributary acquisition project, having its chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs, which includes the lands of the petitioners. 14. We may note that in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners dated 19.1.2024, the contentions of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the affidavit of the Collector dated 6.1.2024 had been replied in the following manner : "3. So far as contentions in para 1 to 5 of the affidavit in reply is concerned, the present deponent has no any comments as the same are the internal communications of the state authorities." 15. It is, thus, clear that the petitioners have not denied any of the factual averments made in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the affidavit of the Collector dated 6.1.2024, contents of which had been noted hereinabove. The fact remains that there is an admission on the part of the petitioners that the land acquisition proceedings were not brought to their logical end. The land owners had filled their lands that had been dug up and started cultivation and farming activities in their respective lands. The construction of Ladol distributary extending from chainage 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs situated at Village Gavada, wherein the lands in question belonging to the petitioners had been included, had never been taken further. 16. The land owners had filled their lands that had been dug up and started cultivation and farming activities in their respective lands. The construction of Ladol distributary extending from chainage 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs situated at Village Gavada, wherein the lands in question belonging to the petitioners had been included, had never been taken further. 16. Further, the State Government has taken a decision to withdraw from the acquisition and the proceedings for determination of compensation for the damages caused to the land holders had been initiated, with the statement made in the affidavit of the Collector in paragraph 6.2 that only land bearing Survey Nos. 607/1, 648, 645/1, 644, 643, 642 situated at Village Gavada had been dug up by the respondent-authorities at the relevant point of time and only such land holders/ owners would be entitled for payment of compensation for damages caused to them, pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings. A categorical statement has been made in the said Para-6.2 that there are certain land holders whose lands had neither been proposed to be acquired nor dug up yet they are the petitioners in the petition. 17. As per statement in paragraph 6.3 of the aforesaid affidavit, the respondent No.3 has forwarded a proposal dated 15.12.2023 to the Superintending Engineer, SujlamSufalam Circle-II, Mehsana for granting necessary approval for determination of compensation. 18. To the above averments made in paragraph 6.2, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder affidavit that the averments made therein are misleading and have been made in order to misguide this Court. The submission is that the reliance placed on the communication dated 28.11.2023 between the Deputy Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal, Sub-Division-III and respondent No.3 had been made basis to make averments with regard to the survey numbers, noted hereinbefore, to the effect that only those whose lands have not been dug up are not entitled for compensation. There is a denial in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder to the statement made in the affidavit of the Collector that there are certain land owners whose lands had neither been proposed to be acquired nor dug up yet they are the petitioners in the present petition. There is a denial in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder to the statement made in the affidavit of the Collector that there are certain land owners whose lands had neither been proposed to be acquired nor dug up yet they are the petitioners in the present petition. However, there is no categorical assertion while denying the said averment to the effect as to which are those petitioners whose lands were acquired under Sections 4 and 6 notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and whose lands were actually dug up during the course of construction of Ladol distributary extending from chainage 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs. 19. Taking note of the above, we may further go through the affidavit dated 8.8.2024 filed by the Collector, Mehsana wherein the progress in the matter of determination of damages caused to the land owners on account of their respective lands being dug up in the year 2008, has been brought on record. There is a repetition of the averments with regard to the acquisition of lands, the decision not to construct Ladol distributary chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs and the lands of the land owners having been dug up in the year 2008 and that the respondent authorities decided not to acquire the lands in question as the Project could not be taken further. 20. With regard to the damages caused to the land owners, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit that the office of the Executive Engineer, Dharoi main canal division, Dharoi Dam, Dharoi, Taluka: Satlasana, District: Mehsana has sent a proposal dated 29.7.2024 to the office of the Superintending Engineer, SujlamSuflam Circle-II, Mehsana, wherein the determination of the damages to be paid to the petitioners on account of the lands being dug up for construction of Ladol distributary chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs in the year 2008, has been made. A request has been made to seek approval for allocation of the amount of Rs79,21,765.82, which includes determination of damages to the petitioners amounting to Rs.58,11,713.62 as also an amount of Rs.21,10,052.20/- being the amount of damages to be paid to land owners whose land has been dug up in the construction of Ladol distributary in the year 2008, but have not preferred any writ-petition before this Court. 21. 21. A detail with regard to the computation of the proposed compensation to be paid to the land owners has been given in paragraph 5 wherein it is stated that the prices of chief crops that has been cultivated in the Vijapur Taluka from 2008- 2023, namely Cotton, Custard, Groundnuts, Wheat, Potato and Tobacco (chief crops that had been generally cultivated in the locality where the lands of the petitioners are situated), had been sought from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Vijapur and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mehsana. The prices of above noted six chief crops, provided by the Agricultural Produce Market Committees, from the year 2008-2023 was per quintal and they were converted into price per kg. The average yield per hectare per kg for a particular year was thereafter taken into consideration and such average yield for the Mehsana District was sought from the data published on the website of the Agricultural Cooperative Department, Gandhinagar. 22. It is further stated that on receipt of the said data, final income that would be accrued to the land owners in a particular year would be determined by multiplying the average yield in that area for a particular year with the average price per kg of the particular crop in a year. Thereafter, 30% deduction would be made in the aforesaid income by considering the cost of cultivation of the crop per hectare per year. The figure so arrived after having adopted the aforesaid computation process would be the net income accrued to the land holder in a particular year, had his land being not dug up and the same be utilised for the purpose of cultivation. 23. It is further stated that the land owners have already been granted advance compensation, computed at the then prevailing market rate, after the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the damages computed would be paid to the petitioners upon allocation of grant by the State Government. It is further stated that the lands of the petitioners that had been dug up in the year 2008, have already been filled up by the respondent authorities. It is further stated that the lands of the petitioners that had been dug up in the year 2008, have already been filled up by the respondent authorities. With these averments, it is categorically stated that the petitioners would be entitled for the damages caused to their lands on account of their lands having dug up in the year 2008 and the determination of the damages would be as per the formula noted hereinabove. 24. This affidavit has not been replied till date. 25. Be that as it may, from the averments noted hereinbefore it is more than evident that to the categorical assertions made by the Collector in the affidavit dated 6.1.2024 that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question and are utilising the lands in question for cultivation/ agricultural activities, there is absolutely no denial. The silence on the part of the petitioners in the rejoinder about the categorical statement made in paragraph 4.7 of the affidavit dated 6.1.2024 on this aspect is clear proof of the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question. The lands which were part of the acquisition notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2011, 2012 and 2013, which fall in the Ladol distributary from the chainage extending from 3300 mtrs to 15415 mtrs situated in Village Gavada though had been dug up, but were never utilised for construction of canal. The petitioners themselves have approached this Court in the month of August, 2023 and had kept silent for a period of 10 years. This silence on the part of the petitioners and vague assertions made in the writ-petition as also the rejoinder affidavit are proof of the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the lands in question and are doing agricultural activities. This silence on the part of the petitioners and vague assertions made in the writ-petition as also the rejoinder affidavit are proof of the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the lands in question and are doing agricultural activities. For the damages caused to the petitioners on account of acquisition proceedings though drawn but not brought to their logical end, as the details have been given in the affidavit filed on 8.8.2024, to calculate the cost of the crops from the year 2008- 2023, in our considered opinion, is a fair amount of damages computed by the Office of the Executive Engineer, Dharoi main canal division, Dharoi Dam, Dharoi, Taluka: Satlasana, District: Mehsana in the proposal dated 29.7.2024, reference of which can be found in paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 8.8.2024, which has been noted hereinabove. 26. We, therefore, dispose of the present writ petitions with the observations that the respondents shall complete the process of computation of damages caused to the land holders of lands which fall within Ladol distributary chainage extending from 3300 mts to 15415 mtrs, situated at Village Gavada, including those who have not approached this Court in the present petition. Once the process of computation of damages is completed, for the purposes of distribution of compensation amongst the land holders, an exercise for verification/ identification of the land holders whose lands fall in the aforesaid area of Village Gavada, shall be completed by a Committee which shall be constituted by the Collector, comprising of two Officers namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dharoi Vatrak and other projects, Himmatnagar and the Executive Engineer, Dharoi main canal dam division, Dharoi Dam, Dharoi, Taluka: Satlasana, District: Mehsana. The exercise of verification/ identification of the land holders whose lands fall within the chainage of proposed Ladol distributary extending from 3300 mts to 15415 mtrs, shall be completed by providing due notice and opportunity to all such concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 27. 27. It goes without saying that only those petitioners herein who have been identified to be the land holders of the lands falling in the aforesaid area, which were proposed to be acquired vide notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, withdrawn later, shall be entitled to the damages, as computed by the Collector, in accordance with the computation formula, as noted hereinabove. An independent inquiry with regard to the entitlement of each of the petitioners herein to the damages amount shall be completed by the Committee, to be constituted by the Collector, as per the constitution given hereinabove. With the above observations and directions, both the connected writ petitions stand disposed of.