ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, C.J. There are two counsels appearing for the petitioner, one of whom is the learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, who has sent a leave note and the other learned advocate-Ms. Bela Prajapati has sent a sick note today. We are not inclined to respect the leave note or sick note of the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts of the present case narrated in the subsequent paragraphs. 2. The ordersheet indicates that the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition incorporating two prayers in the writ petition vide order dated 21.4.2022. Two weeks’ time was granted to the petitioner to file the amended writ petition, which has never been filed by the petitioner. The ordersheet further indicates that the repeated sick notes and leave notes have been circulated by the two learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the matter was got adjourned. 3. In view of the order dated 5.7.2023, whereby the time was granted to the learned AGP to file the affidavit-in-reply, two orders dated 07.08.2023 and 28.08.2023 had been passed granting time to the learned AGP to file affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent No.2. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed in the month of September, 2023, to which the rejoinder has been filed in the month of October, 2023. 4. Be that as it may, the writ petition has been filed challenging the show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022, which was issued for resumption of the lands allotted to the petitioner trust on the terms that the acquired land had not been utilised for the purposes for which it was allotted to the petitioner-trust. It is brought on record in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State respondents that pursuant to the show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022, the consequential order dated 01.04.2022 has been passed which though was sought to be challenged by way of the amendment allowed on 21.04.2022, but the amendments have not been carried out by filling the amended writ petition. The fact remains that the consequential order dated 1.4.2022 of resumption of the land-in-question in furtherance of the show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022 remained unchallenged. 5. Proceeding further, we may record that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had culminated into an award dated 30.04.1962 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereunder various parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 5. Proceeding further, we may record that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had culminated into an award dated 30.04.1962 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereunder various parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 167, 168, 168 p/ 1, 168 p/2, 170/p, 171/p, 179 p/2, 177, 187 p/2, 187 p/1, 188 p/1, 188 p/2, 188/3A, 188/3B, 189, 190/3, 159 p/1, 160/2 situated at village Jafarabad, Taluka Godhra, District Panchmahal came to be acquired. In Village Form No.6, the mutation entry No. 314 was carried out including the facts that the land has been acquired for the establishment of the college for fulfillment of noble object of spread of education set up by the petitioner trust. The affidavit-in-reply categorically states that the land-in-question has been acquired by the State Government to enable the petitioner trust to establish an educational institution, which has never been utilised for the purpose of acquisition and remained in the vacant state. An application under Section 36 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 namely the application No. 36 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner trust before the Joint Charity Commissioner and an order dated 4.8.2018 had been passed permitting the petitioner trust to transfer the land-in-question. Resultantly, a gift deed has been executed by the petitioner trust in favour of the Lakulish International Fellowship Enlightenment Mission whereby certain portions of the acquired land given by the State Government for the purpose of setting up of the educational institution by the petitioner trust had been transferred to the aforesaid third party. 6. It is categorically stated that the petitioner trust had not obtained permission required under Section 44-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for transfer of the land which was acquired for the private entity namely the petitioner trust. The acquisition-in-question was made under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and hence for transfer of the acquired land, or any part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the previous sanction of the appropriate government was mandatorily required. The acquisition-in-question was made under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and hence for transfer of the acquired land, or any part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, the previous sanction of the appropriate government was mandatorily required. It is further stated that kachcha mutation entry No. 1064 reflecting conveyance of the land-in-question by the petitioner trust in favour of Lakulish International Fellowship Enlightenment Mission came to be rejected with the remark that the land-in-question had not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired and the said land was illegally transferred without prior permission of the competent authority in favour of the third party. An appeal namely RTS Appeal No. 17 of 2019 was preferred by the petitioner trust, which came to be rejected vide order dated 01.02.2021. The Appeal before the Collector against the order dated 01.02.2021 is pending adjudication till date. In the meantime, a report dated 23.11.2021 was submitted by the Mamlatdar, Godhra (Rural) opining to initiate the proceedings for breach of the conditions pertaining to acquisition of the land-in-question with the report that the land acquired for the petitioner trust had not been utilised for the purposes for which it was originally acquired. 7. The rojkam of the land which had been acquired and allotted to the petitioner has been prepared after physical inspection and verifying the status of the utilisation of the such land. The rojkam alongwith the photograph dated 7.2.2022 has been appended with the affidavit-in-reply to state that the position of the site reflects that the lands were un-utilised and lying in ideal and vacant state. Consequentially, the order dated 11.02.2022 had been passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Prant, Godhra for resumption of the land which was otherwise vested in the State Government. This order came to be challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 3765 of 2022, which had been set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. While setting aside the order and allowing the writ petition, this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2022 remitted the matter back to the Deputy Collector to take a decision after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, with the rider that the petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the proceedings before the Deputy Collector. 8. 8. After remittal, notice dated 14.03.2022 was issued, whereafter the petitioner trust sought adjournments on 21.03.2022, 28.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 to represent its case efficiently and effectively. Thus, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, the order dated 1.4.2022 has been passed for resumption of the land-in-question on the ground that the prior approval of the competent authority under Section 44-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had not been obtained for transfer of the land-in-question to a third party, a land which had been acquired by the State Government under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for public purposes for setting up educational institution by the petitioner trust. As against this stand of the State Government, in the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has taken the defence of the Repeal Act to submit that no action could be taken taking recourse to the provisions of Section 44-A of the Land Acquisition Act after the Repeal of the said Act by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Apart from the said submission, no other arguments have been made. 9. No one is present to press the writ petition. Even the consequential order dated 01.04.2022 has not been subjected to challenge in the present petition by amending the writ petition inspite of the time was granted by this Court in the order dated 21.04.2022. 10. We may record that the procedure for acquisition of the land for private company has been prescribed in Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein Section 41 provides for an Agreement with the appropriate government, which contains the conditions for usage of the land-in-question for the purpose for which the land had been acquired, which is essentially public purpose. On the publication of the agreement in the official gazette, the land-in-question stood transferred to the petitioner trust for the usage for the public purpose, for which it was acquired. Section 44A puts a restriction on the transfer of any land, which is acquired under Part VII by the company, namely the private entity, and categorically provides that no company shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate government. Section 44A puts a restriction on the transfer of any land, which is acquired under Part VII by the company, namely the private entity, and categorically provides that no company shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate government. Section 44B further provides that no land shall be acquired under Part VII except for the purposes in Clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 40 for a private company which is not a Government company. Section 44(A) reads as under :- “No company for which any land is acquired under this Part shall be entitled to transfer the said land or any part thereof by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government.” 11. The petitioner trust, which is a private company, had been given the acquired land for the purpose of establishment of an educational institution, which was termed as a public purpose, which has not been achieved so far. The land-in-question has not been utilised for the purposes for which it has been acquired. Though the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been repealed with the advent of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, but the repeal and saving clause contained in Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 clearly provides that the Repeal under sub-section(1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeals. The result is that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contained in Part VII will be applicable in the present matter, inasmuch as, the mandate of Section 44 A would apply with respect to the land which has been acquired for the public purpose and given to the petitioner trust by invoking the procedure prescribed in part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 12. 12. Proceeding further, we may record that Section 2 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 also prescribes in sub-section 2(b) for acquisition of the land for private companies for the public purpose, as defined in sub-section (1) of Section 2, which prescribes that the land for private companies or for public private partnership projects can be acquired with the consent of the land holders with the prior consent of atleast 70-80% of the affected families. 13. Taking note of the above provisions, it is more than evident that the private land acquired for the public purpose, vested with the State Government, was transferred to a private entity, namely the petitioner trust herein, for specific purpose which was the public purpose for establishment of an educational institution in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was incumbent upon the petitioner trust to utilise the land-in-question for the purpose for which it was acquired and transferred to it. There is no denial in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner trust that the land-in-question has never been utilised for the purposes for which it was transferred. The acquired land vested with the State Government transferred with the conditions and restrictions in the agreement arrived under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not have been transferred to a third party without complying with the provisions of Section 44A, i.e. without the previous sanction of the appropriate government namely the State Government in the present case. 14. As no previous sanction has been obtained and the land-in-question has never been utilised for the purpose for which it was transferred conditionally to the petitioner trust, we do not find any error in the decision of the State Government to resume the land, which was vested with the State Government with the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings in Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022 is subjected to challenge in the present petition and for the discussion made above we do not find any reason to interfere. At the cost of repeatation, it may be noted that since the amendments have not been carried out, we take it that the order dated 1.4.2022 has not been challenged by the petitioner on merits. 15. At the cost of repeatation, it may be noted that since the amendments have not been carried out, we take it that the order dated 1.4.2022 has not been challenged by the petitioner on merits. 15. For the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits in the absence of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner. No order as to costs.