ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr.S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent State and its authorities. 2. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that the land in question, viz. Survey No. 84/1 P3 (New Survey No.469) admeasuring 01-07-27 sq. mtrs. situated at village Akhol Moti, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskatha, has been acquired by proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the publication of the Notifications under section 4 and 5 dated 03.05.2000 and 18.08.2000; respectively, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Acquisition Act'). The Award for the land in question has been declared on 19.02.2002. 2. There is no dispute about the receipt of compensation by the original tenure holder under the aforesaid award, who was predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein. The contention in the writ petition is that the lands in question, viz. Survey No. 84/1 P3 along with another piece of land viz., Survey No. 85 were acquired to set up a check-post of the Sales Tax Department, which later had been shifted to a location 41 kms. away from the land in question. The contention in the writ petition is that since the purpose for which the land in question, viz. Survey No. 84/1 P3 was acquired, had not been given effect to or in other words, the land in question has not been utilised for the purposes for which it was acquired, in view of Section 93 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act'), the land in question is required to be released in favour of the petitioners, by application of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well, which was pari materia provision under the old Act. To substantiate the contention of the petitioners that the land in question is required to be released in their favour, it is contended in paragraph 8' of the writ petition that the possession of the land in question has never been taken by the State Government or its authorities from the petitioners till date. To substantiate the contention of the petitioners that the land in question is required to be released in their favour, it is contended in paragraph 8' of the writ petition that the possession of the land in question has never been taken by the State Government or its authorities from the petitioners till date. It is also stated that the possession had never been taken from the predecessors of the petitioners and since the possession has not been taken, the land in question can never be said to have been vested with the State Government. The further contention is that the entire land acquisition proceeding stood lapsed by application of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, as has been held by this Court with respect to the adjoining land, viz. Survey No. 85, which was acquired in the same acquisition proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 18370 of 2015 wherein this Court has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question therein, viz. Survey No. 85 (similarly situated land) had been lapsed by virtue of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The submission, thus, is that once acquisition proceedings have been held to have been lapsed with respect to the adjoining land, viz. Survey No.85, the same principles are required to be followed, to release the land in question viz., Survey No.84/1 in favour of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the possession of the land in question has not been taken by the State Government. 4. Testing this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, suffice it to note that the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 by implication of Section 24 (2) was passed at the relevant point of time when there were contrary decisions of different High Courts about applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The clout created at the relevant point of time has been cleared with the decision of the Apex Court in Indore Land Development Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. The clout created at the relevant point of time has been cleared with the decision of the Apex Court in Indore Land Development Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [ (2020) 8 SCC 129 ] wherein while interpreting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, it has been held that in cases where award has been passed prior to the enforcement of 2013 Act or transfer of paper possession of the land in question has been done, the acquisition proceedings cannot be lapsed by applying sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The words "physical possession of the land" have been interpreted to state that in land acquisition proceedings, paper transfer of possession by preparation of panchnama or paper possession is an approved mode, inasmuch as, many a times, there is resistance of the land owners to part away with the physical possession of the acquired land. Even transfer of the acquired land by preparation of panchnama, so called paper possession, would fall within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 24 and a land owner who has been dispossessed by preparation of panchnama cannot argue that since he has not been physically dispossessed, the acquisition proceeding stood lapsed by application of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. 5. It is held therein that with the making of the award and transfer of possession by preparation of panchnama, viz. paper possession would bring the land acquisition proceeding to its logical conclusion and the land having vested with the State Government, the acquisition proceedings cannot lapse by application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 6. Besides that, we may take note of the provisions of Sections 11, 11A and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, which provided the period during which the award was required to be made under the old provisions and vesting of the acquired land with the State Government, free from all encumbrances, on taking of possession by the Collector. A conjoint reading of Sections 11, 11A with Section 16 makes it clear that with the making of the award within the time provided under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector taking possession, the acquired land shall vest absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. 7. A conjoint reading of Sections 11, 11A with Section 16 makes it clear that with the making of the award within the time provided under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector taking possession, the acquired land shall vest absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. 7. In the instant case, with the making of the award and preparation of the possession memo or panchnama of the land in question, it stood vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances by implication of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no assertion in the writ petition with regard to the preparation of panchnama or paper possession or transfer by paper possession. The vague assertions made in paragraph 8' of the writ petition that the possession of the land in question has never been taken either from the petitioners or their predecessors cannot be given any credence. 8. We may further take note of the findings returned by this Court in the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 with respect to the land in Survey No.85, reference of which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was recorded by this court that the possession receipt dated 28.03.2003 placed therein recorded handing over possession of the land by the Circle Officer, Deesa to the office of the Sales Tax Department. The plea of the petitioners herein based on the said decision of the adjoining land that the acquisition proceedings have not been lapsed, because of the possession of land having not been taken, therefore, is turned down. 9. Coming to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners about withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act on the premise that the land in question has not been utilised for the purposes for which it was acquired, suffice it to note that Section 48 talks of withdrawal of acquisition by the State Government, prior to the completion of the land acquisition proceedings. 10. Sub-section(1) of Section 48 is couched in a way that the State Government is at liberty to withdraw from acquisition of any land of which the possession has not been taken. 10. Sub-section(1) of Section 48 is couched in a way that the State Government is at liberty to withdraw from acquisition of any land of which the possession has not been taken. The power under Section 48 of Land Acquisition Act which is pari materia to Section 93 of 2013 Act cannot be invoked to release the land in question with respect to which the acquisition proceedings have been completed in all respect, and after vesting of the land with the State Government. 11. No direction for consideration of the representation moved by the petitioners to release the land in question by invoking the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 93 of the 2013 Act, therefore, can be granted. 12. Even otherwise, from the facts recorded with respect to Survey No. 85 which was acquired for the similar purpose, in the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016, it is evident that the possession of the land in question has been handed over by the State Government to the Sales Tax Department. We may further note that the stand of the Sales Tax Department for utilisation of the acquired land in the aforesaid decision at page 44' of the paper book wherein this Court has noted the content of a communication dated 05.03.2015 of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax to the Deputy Collector. It was categorically stated therein that the land in question could not be restored to the original owners, inasmuch as, the same was required for the purpose of construction of residential facility for the officials/employees serving at the check-post of the Sales Tax Department. The same situation would apply to the land in question, viz, Survey No. 84/1 P3 (New Survey No.469), as it was needed by the Sales Tax Department as per the letter dated 05.03.2015, for a purpose which is also a public purpose. 13. For the fact that the contiguous land in Survey No. 85 has been directed to be released under the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 at the relevant point of time as the legal principles of applicability of Section 24(2) were not established with clarity, no benefit can be given to the petitioners herein. 14. 13. For the fact that the contiguous land in Survey No. 85 has been directed to be released under the judgment and order dated 17.02.2016 at the relevant point of time as the legal principles of applicability of Section 24(2) were not established with clarity, no benefit can be given to the petitioners herein. 14. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in Hariram vs. State of Haryana [2010 (0) AIJEL-SC 17981], to claim parity with the land owner of Survey No. 85, therefore, is of no benefit to the petitioners. It is to be further noted that the directions issued therein were in the peculiar facts and circumstances or the said case, wherein it was noted that the State Government had adopted pick and choose policy to release the lands of certain similarly situated land owners and the same benefit was required to be granted to the land owners therein, inasmuch as benefit to them cannot be denied by creating artificial distinction. The principles laid down therein cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.