ORDER : (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- 8(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings under the Act and award as claimed by the respondent authority being LAQ/10158 dated 11.2.1958 pursuant to the notification u/s.4 and 6 if any of the Act so far as it pertains to the land bearing survey no.1483/ paiki 1 situated at Halvad, Dist. Morbi. (c) Your Lordships may further be pleased to declare that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 and in respect of the petitioners’ land, shall be deemed to have lapsed in view of the benefits which is granted by the Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; (d) Your Lordships may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents herein, more particularly respondent State of Gujarat as well as the Collector, Morbi to re-grant the land in name of its erstwhile owners being the petitioner herein; (e) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this Special Civil Application, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from dispossessing the petitioner of possession of land and be further be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from interfering with the carrying on agricultural operations on the land in question by the petitioner and their family members. (f) Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para (e) herein above be granted in favour of the petitioner and the same be confirmed after notice to the respondents. (g) Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner. (h) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. A bare perusal of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the challenge made in the writ petition is about the notifications under Sections – 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 published some time in the year 1958. 2. A bare perusal of the prayer clause in the writ petition indicates that the challenge made in the writ petition is about the notifications under Sections – 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 published some time in the year 1958. The petitioner herein seems to be the widow of the original owner appearing through her son. 3. Be that as it may, the challenge to the acquisition notifications is based on the provisions contained in Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [in short ‘The Act, 2013’]. 4. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of land seeds farm and the mutation entry about the acquisition came to be recorded in the year 1970. Even after mutation entry no.1946 of the year 1970, the petitioner remained in the possession of the land in question. The further contention is that in the year 2000, a decision was taken by the State Government to shut down the Biyaran Vrudhi Kendra, which was set up over the land in question, after the land was acquired in the year 1958. It is further stated that the land in question came to be mutated in the name of State Government, Revenue Department vide Notification dated 15.09.2000 and the order passed by the Collector dated 30.05.2005. 5. The story starts with the application under the right to information filed by the petitioner and the contention in the writ petition is that the land in question was never acquired for Biyaran Vrudhi Kendra and further once the same was transferred in the name of the Collector, Surendranagar, the repeal Act, 2013 will apply. The contention in the writ petition is that after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, the land in question was allotted to Bij Nigam Limited, State of Gujarat for construction of godown in the year 2015. When the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Collector, Morbi allotting the land in question, on going through the mutation entry in this regard, she approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) challenging the ex-parte order passed by the Collector. 6. When the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the Collector, Morbi allotting the land in question, on going through the mutation entry in this regard, she approached the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) challenging the ex-parte order passed by the Collector. 6. It is stated that the Special Secretary, Revenue Department without looking into the evidence and without appreciating the correct factual position has rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 09.07.2018. The petitioner, thereafter, approached an advocate seeking to challenge the said order passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department when she was advised to challenge the acquisition proceedings as having been lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [in short ‘The Act, 2013’]. The occasion for filing the present petition has, thus, arisen. 7. Taking note of all the above submissions made by the petitioner in the writ petition, pertinent is to note that there is no question of reverting the land in question to the petitioner once the acquisition proceedings were brought to its logical end in the year 1958 and the mutation entry of the acquisition was made in the year 1970. Though the petitioner stated that she is the original owner of the land in question but there is no material on record to substantiate the same. There is complete silence about the compensation paid to the landholder. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings which was culminated in the year 1958, cannot be entertained for the above facts reflected on the record. 8. It is also to be noted that essentially issue raised by the petitioner is on the premise that the land in question had been allotted to the Bij Nigam Limited, State of Gujarat in the year 2015, for a purpose different than the purpose for which it was originally acquired. This submission cannot be made basis to challenge the acquisition on the premise of the applicability of Section-24(2) the Act, 2013. There is no question of re-grant of the acquired land even in favour of the original owner once the acquisition proceedings was brought to its logical end and the land vest with the State Government. 9. This submission cannot be made basis to challenge the acquisition on the premise of the applicability of Section-24(2) the Act, 2013. There is no question of re-grant of the acquired land even in favour of the original owner once the acquisition proceedings was brought to its logical end and the land vest with the State Government. 9. It is settled principle of law that the acquired land once vested with the State Government can be utilized for any other purpose different from the purpose for which it was acquired, which must necessarily be the public purpose. There has been no challenge to the acquisition proceedings at any point of time. There is a complete silence about the award and the compensation paid to the original owner. Even if the assertion in the writ petition that the petitioner remained in physical possession of the land in question is evaluated for a moment without accepting it, the said fact cannot be a reason to hold that the acquisition has been lapsed by virtue of Section-24(2) of the Act, 2013. 10. The principles enumerated in Section-24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been elaborated by the Apex Court in the case of Indoor Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal And Ors. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129 , wherein it has been observed in paragraph-366 as under:- “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24 (1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24 (1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24 (2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. 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. 366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24 (2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land 3 acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24 (2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). 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. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24 (2), not part of Section 24 (1)(b). 366.7. 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. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24 (2), not part of Section 24 (1)(b). 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). 366.8. The provisions of Section 24 (2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It Land Acquisition Reference Case No.does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” 11. In light of the above legal principles, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the applicability of Section-24(2) of the Act, 2013 are found to be devoid of force. 12. In light of the above legal principles, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the applicability of Section-24(2) of the Act, 2013 are found to be devoid of force. 12. Any assertion with regard to the petitioner occupying the physical possession of the land in question, the same is of no relevance in view of the principles laid down in Indore Development Authority, inasmuch as, even if it is accepted for a moment that the petitioner remained in the physical possession of the acquired land since the year 1958 onwards, the same has to be treated as possession of the State land by an unauthorized occupant. 13. With the above, the writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of merits.