JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. We have heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram for the appellants and Mr. L. Khiangte, learned Advocate for all the respondents. 2. The Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 was amended by the Mizoram Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2022”), which was notified on 22.09.2022 and published in the Gazette on 23.09.2022. By virtue of that amendment in the Act, a new section, namely, Section 75A, was inserted, which provided that the share of the Government on acquisition of land in case of acquisition covered by house pass or stall pass or shop pass or periodic patta or land lease, in which the pass holder have a temporary right, title, interest and possession of the land held, for the purpose of the Union and States crops and building damage compensation as well as land value may be assessed and be paid by the concerned Collector of the District or the concerned competent authority for land acquisition, as the case may be, provided by the validity of the tenure of the said land holding has not expired. Sub-section (2) of Section 75A of the Act of 2022, which is crucial for deciding this case is that out of the land value paid under sub-section (1), 15% share of the Government shall be deducted by the District Collector or competent authority for land acquisition, as the case may be, who shall remit to the State Government Account as revenue. Sub-section (4) of the newly amended Section 75A of the Act of 2022 provides that the Government of Mizoram may notify such acts under which acquisition made would be subject to such collection of shares. Sub-section (5) further delineates that the share of the Government shall also be deducted from the award not yet pronounced even if notification for the acquisition was issued under any land acquisition Act by the Union or State. 3. Sub-section (5) further delineates that the share of the Government shall also be deducted from the award not yet pronounced even if notification for the acquisition was issued under any land acquisition Act by the Union or State. 3. Armed with the power conferred on the State Government under Section 75A(4) of the Act of 2022, the Government of Mizoram notified retrospectively w.e.f. 23.09.2022 that 15% share of the Government, as stipulated under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 75A of the Act of 2022 shall be collected from land acquisition made by the listed authorities and that the share of the Government so collected shall be utilized for the purposes of land administration and other ancillary purposes as stipulated under sub - section (3) of Section 75A of the Act of 2022. 4. The respondents had periodic patta allotted to them by the Land Revenue and Settlement Department of Government of Mizoram in Saitual District, which was acquired for construction of National Highway 102B under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 for which notifications were issued in the year 2021. Thereafter, Section 3G estimate/award was made by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (hereinafter to be referred as “CALA”), Saitual District on 17.02.2022 and the amount of compensation assessed by the CALA was notified but in such notification, it appeared that 15% cess was deducted on the value of land, which was alleged to be illegally deducted by the appellants despite the fact that there was no provision for deduction of 15% from the compensation amount either under the National Highways Act, 1956 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2013”). 5. The lands of the respondents were acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, which is one of the enactments specified in the 4th Schedule to the Act of 2013 and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall apply to the determination of compensation in accordance with the 1st Schedule and also for rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with 2 nd Schedule . This is mandated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015. 6. This is mandated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015. 6. The contention of the respondents was that 15% cess was deductable from the compensation award by virtue of insertion of Section 75A(4) of the amended Act of 2022 and the notification of the Mizoram Government invoking the powers under sub-section (4) of Section 75A(4) of the amended Act of 2022 but then the same would not apply to the case of the respondents for the reason of the acquisition having been made much before the amendment came into existence. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellants argues that the award was made post the amendment and, therefore, if the amended Act of 2022, especially Section 75A, is perused, it would apply to any transaction made after 22.09.2023, the cut-off date. 8. A special notice of this Court has been drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State to sub-section (5)of Section 75A of the Act of 2022 that the share of the Government (15%) shall also be deducted from the award not yet pronounced even if the notification for acquisition was issued under any Land Acquisition Act by the Union or the State. This, therefore, it has been argued, makes it very clear that the Amended Act and the notification thereafter, would squarely apply to the case of the respondents even though the acquisition was made in the year 2021 but the award under Section 3G was pronounced post the amendment, i.e. post 23.09.2022. 9. It appears that the learned Single Judge while dealing with the matter, relied on the provisions contained in the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Rules, 2013, which was amended by the Mizoram (Land Revenue) (Amendment) Rules, 2019 and the judgments of this Court delivered in WP(C) No.36/2021(N. Vanlalnghaka& 10 Ors. -Vs- State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.) and in WP(C) No.1/2024 (C. Lalengzuava& 12 Ors. -Vs- State of Mizoram & 5 Ors.), directed that since deductions made by the appellants herein towards cess was not sustainable, therefore, the appellants would be under an obligation to refund the cess amount deducted from the respondents (writ petitioners) as per the respective shares indicated in the award within a period of 3(three) months. 10. -Vs- State of Mizoram & 5 Ors.), directed that since deductions made by the appellants herein towards cess was not sustainable, therefore, the appellants would be under an obligation to refund the cess amount deducted from the respondents (writ petitioners) as per the respective shares indicated in the award within a period of 3(three) months. 10. The contention on behalf of the appellants/State is that the Amended Act of 2022 and the notification issued by the Government of Mizoram was not appropriately appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 11. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. By virtue of the amended Act of 2022 incorporating Section 75A in the parent Act of 2013 and the notification of the Mizoram Government issued with retrospective date, even though the acquisition was made in the year 2021, and the awards were declared on 17.02.2023 , the cess of 15% would be deductable. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) has, however, submitted that the crucial date would be the date of acquisition, which is prior to the insertion of Section 75A and that possession of the land also was taken and it was because of the delay on the part of the State that Section 3G award was published after the insertion of Section 75A in the Act of 2013 by virtue of amending Act of 2022. 14. This, we are afraid, would not prevent the State from deducting its share for the purpose of utilizing it for land administration and another ancillary purposes because the notification is pursuant to the amendment, the validity of which has not yet been challenged. Section 75A clarifies that the share of the Government shall also be deducted from the award not yet pronounced even if notification for acquisition was issued under any Land Acquisition Act by the Union or the State. With the provision contained in Section 75A(5) couched in such wide terms, the publication of the award post the amendment would definitely be covered. 15. For such reasons, we are not in agreement with the opinion rendered by the learned Single Judge directing the State to refund 15%cess collected, to the respondents to their respective shares. 16. Therefore, we set aside the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge and allow this appeal. 17. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.