JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 13.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1286 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking for direction upon the respondent-BCCL to provide employment in lieu of acquisition of land and house of the petitioner situated at Khata No. 23 Plot No. 163 Area 0.02 decimals in Mouza Barora District Dhanbad, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case: 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading available on record, reads as under: 3. The petitioner purchased 02 decimals of land in Khata No. 23 Plot No. 163 Area 0.02 decimals in Mouza Barora District Dhanbad from its rightful owner and made residential house thereupon. For the use and purpose of respondents-BCCL the land of the petitioner and others were acquired and a land acquisition proceeding was initiated being Land Acquisition Case No. 31/1991-92 and accordingly compensation to the tune of Rs. 2783.25 P for the vacant land of 2 decimal and Rs. 2001.02 P for the house situated upon the land of petitioner was assessed and received by the petitioner through cheque, which was accepted by the petitioner with protest. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner made several representations before the respondents-BCCL that in lieu of acquisition of land and house situated on the land he may be provided employment and in pursuant thereto, vide memo dated 02.08.2007 it has been informed to the petitioner that no employment can be given to the petitioner against the acquisition of 02 decimals of land and as per Rehabilitation Policy only on acquisition of 2 acres of land the employment can be given. 5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition in which the respondents-BCCL was called for, who appeared and filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that on the land in question there was no residential/dwelling house of the petitioner and only four mud walls were there and further for the land and four mud walls situated thereupon compensation has already been paid to the petitioner. 6. Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, dismissed the writ petition, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 7. 6. Learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, dismissed the writ petition, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 7. It is evident from the factual aspect that the land measuring an area of 0.02 decimals in Khata No. 23 Plot No. 163 Area 0.02 decimals in Mouza Barora District Dhanbad whereupon the petitioner alleged to have constructed residential house was acquired by initiating a land acquisition proceeding being Land Acquisition Case No. 31/1991-92 and accordingly compensation for vacant land as also the house situated upon i.e., four-wall mud was assessed and received by the petitioner. However, thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondents-BCCL seeking employment in lieu of acquisition of land and house [four-mud wall] situated on the land, which was denied by the respondents-BCCL, hence the petitioner filed the writ petition. 8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition agreeing with the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL in the counter affidavit as well as in reply affidavit wherein stand has been taken that the land acquisition proceeding which was initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will be said to be closed for all practical purposes after coming into effect of ‘Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’. 9. The order passed by learned Single Judge is under challenge by filing the instant intra-court appeal. 10. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has not appreciated the fact in right prospective that even though the land was acquired and the compensation was taken hence as per the policy decision of the BCCL the employment was to be provided but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact the writ petition since has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. 11. It has further been submitted raising the ground of hostile discrimination that identically placed displaced persons, whose house has been demolished, have been provided with the employment under Rehabilitation Policy but the petitioner has been denied employment. 12. Per contra, Mr. 11. It has further been submitted raising the ground of hostile discrimination that identically placed displaced persons, whose house has been demolished, have been provided with the employment under Rehabilitation Policy but the petitioner has been denied employment. 12. Per contra, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL has defended the order passed by learned Single Judge taking the ground that the land actually is still in possession of the appellant since the possession of the same was never taken by the BCCL. However, as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the amount which is to be paid by way of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land was to be deposited at the time of issuance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1894 and when the award was prepared the amount of compensation was paid. But actually the possession of the land was never handed over to the respondent-BCCL. 13. In response to the submission advanced on the ground of hostile discrimination, submission has been made that in case of other persons, who have been given appointments, dwelling houses were situated on their lands but in the case of appellant there was no house rather four mud-wall was present on the land of the appellant, hence it cannot be said to be dwelling house. Therefore, the case of the appellant is distinct to that of persons, who have been provided employment in lieu of acquisition of land and house constructed thereupon. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL has further submitted that for all practical purposes whatever right being claimed on the basis of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1894’] will be said to be ceased on or after the enactment of the new Act i.e., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2013’], which has been notified w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The submission therefore has been made that learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has declined to pass positive direction, hence, the order impugned cannot be said to suffer from error. Analysis: 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the averments in the pleadings along with the documents appended thereto and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 16. Analysis: 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the averments in the pleadings along with the documents appended thereto and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 16. The issue which first requires consideration in the present facts and circumstances of the case is regarding the applicability of the Act i.e., Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’. 17. Earlier before coming into effect of Act, 2013, there was Land Acquisition Act of the year 1894. After coming into effect of Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.01.2014 the legislation has taken care of effect of the Act, 1894 for the purpose of continuing with the proceeding by providing provision of saving clause as under Section 24 particularly sub-section (2) thereof. 18. Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 provides the following conditions for the purpose of permitting the continuation of the acquisition proceeding initiated under the old Act, 1894 i.e., (i).Award is to be passed five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act; (ii).The amount of compensation, has not been paid; or possession of the land has not been taken. 19. For ready reference Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is quoted as under: “24.(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.” 20. The issue crept up that what is the meaning of word ‘OR’ in between the phrase “possession of the land has not been taken” and “the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings” as also what would be the meaning of acceptance of amount of compensation i.e., only tendering the amount of compensation will be said to be sufficient compliance of the amount having been said to be received by the land losers or depositing in the treasury will be said to be sufficient compliance of the amount to be paid to the land losers as mentioned in the Act, 2013. 21. The matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 wherein view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court that tendering of money means that the actual payment in the pocket of the land losers. Subsequently, the aforesaid issue has again been considered before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., wherein the divergent view was taken. 22. In view of two divergent view on the issue in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (supra) and Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [ (2020) 6 SCC 304 ] the matter was referred before the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 . 23. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (supra) decides by differing with the view taken in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (supra) by interpreting Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 that the amount of compensation will be said to be paid and the obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount. The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The word ‘or’ in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 used in between the phrase "possession has not been taken" or "compensation has not been paid" has been determined by Hon’ble Apex Court by framing said question in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 395 i.e., ‘Whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act used in “possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid” i.e., between the two conditions, is to be read as “and” i.e., whether the said “or” is used conjunctively?, has been answered by the Constitution Bench in the said case i.e., Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [ (2020) 8 SCC 129 , after taking reference of catena of the case laws as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court; the concluding paragraph of the judgment reads as under: “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.” 24. Adverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly the process of acquiring of land as under the provision of Act, 1894 started by issuance of notice under 4 of the Act, 1894. The BCCL, in terms of provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, 1984, deposited the entire amount for the purpose of compensating the land losers. The land on paper was acquired and accordingly the award was prepared and in lieu thereof, the amount of compensation was also paid in favour one or the other including the petitioner herein. 25. The BCCL, in terms of provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, 1984, deposited the entire amount for the purpose of compensating the land losers. The land on paper was acquired and accordingly the award was prepared and in lieu thereof, the amount of compensation was also paid in favour one or the other including the petitioner herein. 25. It is admitted fact herein that the land which was acquired was having dwelling houses and hence as per the re-settlement and rehabilitation policy (R &R Policy) the respondent BCCL has provided employment in favour of displaced persons whose dwelling house were demolished. But the stand of the BCCL before the learned writ Court as also before this Court is that the land of writ petitioner-appellant although was acquired but still the possession of the same has not been handed over. Further, over the land of the appellant-writ petitioner there was no dwelling house rather there was only four-mud wall structure, for which also he was paid compensation, hence, the case of the appellant-writ petitioner was not considered fit for consideration for employment in lieu of acquisition of land and demolition of dwelling house. 26. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said act has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1286 of 2008 by taking two-folds ground: (i).that the land has been acquired and compensation has been paid but as per the R&R policy, the employment has not been provided (ii).That the respondent-BCCL in not providing employment has subjected the appellant-writ petitioner to hostile discrimination. It is for the reason that other identically placed land-losers has been provided with the employment under the R&R policy. 27. Before the learned Single Judge, the ground was taken on behalf of respondents-BCCL that after coming into effect of Act, 2013 all the proceedings which were initiated, so far as claim of the appellant is concerned on the basis of Act, 1894 will be said to be ceased in view of the none of the conditions, as available under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is attracted. 28. 28. The second ground was taken that the claim of the writ petitioner that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination is not correct for the reason that others who have been provided appointment under the Scheme their dwelling houses were also demolished but in the case of the appellant there was no dwelling house. 29. The learned Single Judge, has appreciated the grounds taken on behalf of BCCL and agreeing with the same the writ petition has been dismissed, against which, the present appeal. 30. We have appreciated the foundational fact, as available in the pleading and in order to come to the conclusion regarding the applicability of the Act, 2013 or the Act, 1894 is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 will not be applicable reason being that the amount of compensation has already been received, however, the land is still in possession but as has been held by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (supra) either of the conditions is to be fulfilled that either compensation has been paid or the possession has been taken, then the saving clause as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 will be applicable. Herein, the amount of compensation has already been paid and in that view of the matter the proceeding under the Act, 1894 will not be said to be continued in view of provision of Act, 2013. 31. So far as the ground taken on behalf of appellant that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination, this Court on consideration of the factual aspect in this regard has found from the material available on record that the employment which was provided in favour of land losers their dwelling houses situated over the land which were acquired were also demolished but herein as per the stand of the BCCL there was no dwelling house rather only four-mud walls were there, hence in absence of any dwelling house said to be demolished, the case of the appellant could not be considered for the purpose of providing employment under R&R policy. 32. However, Mr. 32. However, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has disputed the fact that there was no dwelling but even accepting the same as has been argued on behalf of appellant there was dwelling house while contrary to the submission it has been submitted that there was no dwelling house, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot come to the aforesaid fact finding due to the fact that the same is disputed question of fact which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence. The same is not said to be proper in giving the finding to that effect by this Court in a summary proceeding like the writ proceeding. 33. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as above and coming to the order passed by learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the ceasure of the proceeding which was initiated on the basis of Act, 1894 and due to non-availability of the conditions available under Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013, hence the same cannot be said to be error in the eye of law. 34. However, this court in addition to the said finding is of the view that since the argument has been advanced on behalf of appellant that he has been subjected to the hostile discrimination and further grievance of the writ petitioner is that the said fact was raised before the learned Single Judge but there is no consideration since nothing has been referred therein. 35. This Court needs to refer herein that the intra-court appeal is in furtherance of the proceeding in writ court and if the fact was there in the pleading before the writ court but having not been referred in the impugned order then remitting the matter before the learned Single Judge will not be said to be proper rather the same needs to be considered by the intra-court being in furtherance of the writ proceeding. 36. 36. This Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has found that it is not a case of hostile discrimination reason being that the stand which has been given by the respondent-BCCL that the appointment which has been given to other land-losers were having the dwelling houses over their land but in the case of the appellant the dwelling house was not found to be there as per the stand of the BCCL. 37. This Court further needs to refer herein that the principle as under Article 14 of the Constitution of India will not be attracted in a case of classification which is unreasonable one. However, in the case of reasonable classification, the issue would have been different but that is not the case herein. 38. Considering the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned order needs no interference. 39. Accordingly, instant intra-court appeal fails and is dismissed. 40. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.