JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Vijay Bishnoi, CJ. These writ appeals are preferred by the State being aggrieved with the judgment & order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5730/2014 and WP(C) No.6397/2014. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, has allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners with a direction to the State respondents (appellants herein) to determine the compensation payable to the private respondents/writ petitioners on the basis of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2013”) and to pay such compensation expeditiously by adjusting the amount already paid to the writ petitioners. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ appeals are that the Government of India and the Government of Assam, in collaboration with 6(six) private/ public companies, had decided to establish Indian Institute of Information Technology at Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as “IIIT, Guwahati”). For the purpose of establishment of IIIT, Guwahati, proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 1894”) for acquiring 296 Bighas and 1 Katha of land situated in Sonatala, Bongora and Maliata Villages under Chayani Mouza in Kamrup District. In relation to the said proceedings, 4(four) land acquisition cases, namely, L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012; L.A. Case No.11/2012 and L.A. Case No.12/2012 were instituted. However, later on, vide notification dated 25.05.2012, L.A. Case No.11/2012 and L.A. Case No.12/2012 were included for acquisition of land. In relation to the said proceedings, 4(four) land acquisition cases, namely, L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012; L.A. Case No.11/2012 and L.A. Case No.12/2012 were instituted. However, later on, vide notification dated 25.05.2012, L.A. Case No.11/2012 and L.A. Case No.12/2012 were included for acquisition of land. The writ petitioners of the 2(two) writ petitions, whose lands were acquired, prayed for the following reliefs:- “In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the relief/ reliefs as prayed for shall not be granted and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute by granting to the Petitioner the following relief/reliefs: I) To issue a writ in the nature of “Certiorari” quashing the Land Acquisition Case No.01/2012, 02/2012, 11/2012 and 12/2012; AND II) To issue a writ in the nature of “Mandamus” directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to initiate the entire Land Acquisition proceedings de-novo under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquire all such lands for the establishment of the Institute namely Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati at the revenue villages Sontola, Bangara, Maliata, Sathikarpa under Chayani mouza, Plashbari Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup, Assam, AND III) Directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to pay the appropriate amount of compensation to the Petitioners under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the acquisition of their land; AND IV) Directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to fix a reasonable time limit to complete the Land Acquisition proceedings and to pay the compensation after taking appropriate hearing from the Petitioners under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; AND In the interim, until disposal of this case, the Respondent No.1 & 3 may kindly be directed not to take any coercive measures to take possession of their lands which are proposed to be acquisitioned for the establishment of the Institute namely Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati at the revenue villages Sontola, Bangara, Maliata, Sathikarpa under Chayani mouza, Palashbari Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup, Assam until further order.” 3. The case of the private respondents/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the Act of 2013 came into force with effect from 27.09.2013 and, therefore, the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 in the month of December, 2013 are illegal and bad in law, because when the Act of 1894 got repealed with the enactment of the Act of 2013, no notification for land acquisition applying the provisions of the Act of 1894 can be issued. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment, has rejected the said contention while observing that the foundation of both the writ petitions was based on erroneous premise that the Act of 2013 came into effect from 27.09.2013, whereas the fact remains that the Act of 2013 came into effect from 01.01.2014. The private respondents/writ petitioners also claimed that they are entitled to get the compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013 instead of the provisions of the Act of 1894. The private respondents/ writ petitioners claimed that the final award in L.A. Case Nos.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012 and L.A. Case No.11/2012 was approved on 09.01.2014 and, therefore, as per Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, the private respondents/writ petitioners are entitled to get the compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, who were the respondents before the Writ Court, has opposed the said contention while contending that the award in the above-referred L.A. Cases was approved on 31.12.2013 and, therefore, the private respondents/writ petitioners are entitled for the compensation in lieu of the acquisition of their land as per the provisions of the Act of 1894 only. 5. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the note- sheets as well as the provisions of the Act of 2013, has concluded that since the award passed by the District Collector was approved only on 09.01.2014, the private respondents/writ petitioners are entitled to get the compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 2013, as per the mandate of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. Operative portion of the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:- “28. The aforesaid three letters were issued based on the approval granted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and DM Department, on 09.01.2014. 29. Operative portion of the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:- “28. The aforesaid three letters were issued based on the approval granted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and DM Department, on 09.01.2014. 29. The extracts of the note-sheets go to show that the estimates submitted in connection with the three LA Cases were approved by the Minister concerned 31 .12.2013. What was approved on 31.12.2013 was the estimate. It is also evident t hat awards in the three land acquisition cases in Form-15 were submitted to the Government by the Collector on 31.12.2016. The approval of the estimate by the Government is not one and the same thing as the approval of the award passed by t he Collector. 30. In Rajiv Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court held that under first proviso to Section 11 of the LA Act, no award can be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in that behalf. Such approval is a condition precedent for passing of an award. 31. In Bailamma (Smt) (supra), the Supreme Court laid down that the Collector is required to send his award to the Government for approval. It is further observed that an award shall not be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize and, therefore, before an award can be said to have been ma de, it is mandatory that it must be approved by the Government or the officer authorized in this behalf. It was also held that the award which had already been signed by the Collector becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration. 32. The note sheets demonstrate that the Deputy Secretary had put up notes on 09.01.2014 in all the three cases indicating that the awards had been submitted and the same may be approved. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and DM (LR) Department approved the same on 09.01.2014 in all the three cases and, thereafter, letters dated 09.01.2014 had been issued forwarding approved copy of the awards in respect of the three LA Cases. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and DM (LR) Department approved the same on 09.01.2014 in all the three cases and, thereafter, letters dated 09.01.2014 had been issued forwarding approved copy of the awards in respect of the three LA Cases. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the awards in question having been approved by the Government on 09.01.2014, the awards cannot be said to have been made on 31.12.2013. Thus, the awards were made after coming into force of the 2013 Act. 33. In view of the above determination, the State respondents are directed t o determine compensation on the basis of the provisions of the 2013 Act and to p ay such compensation expeditiously by adjusting the amounts already paid.” 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant State has assailed the impugned judgment & order while arguing that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the award was approved by the competent authority only on 09.01.2014 is erroneous because from the records it is clear that the award signed by the Collector was approved by the competent authority on 31.12.2013 and not on 09.01.2014. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has invited our attention towards various note-sheets annexed with WP(C) No.5730/2014 as Annexures: A-2-A; A3-A and A-4-A. The note-sheets pertain to approval of the estimate submitted in the aforementioned L.A. Cases as well as the approval granted by the competent authority of the State Government to the award signed by the District Collector. The learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Bailamma (Smt.) Alias Doddabailamma (Dead) & Ors. -Vs- Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society & Ors., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 416 and has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the award, which has already been signed by the Collector, becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration. -Vs- Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society & Ors., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 416 and has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the award, which has already been signed by the Collector, becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the award was signed by the District Collector on 31.12.2013 and the same was approved by the competent authority on the very same day and, in such circumstances, the private respondents/writ petitioners are only entitled to get the compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 1894 and not as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside and the writ petitions filed by the private respondents/writ petitioners may be dismissed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents/writ petitioners has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and has argued that, from the available records, it is clear that the award passed by the District Collector in L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. case No.1/2012 and L.A. Case No.11/2012 was approved only on 09.01.2014 and as such, the private respondents/writ petitioners are entitled to get the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of2013, by virtue of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. The learned counsel has further invited our attention towards the fact that, as a matter of fact, in compliance of the judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State of Assam has already determined the compensation required to be paid to the private respondents/writ petitioners as per the provisions of the Act of 2013 and payment of compensation to the private respondents/writ petitioners as per the provisions of the Act of 2013 is already in process. 8. However, it appears that though the State Government has decided to disburse compensation to the private respondents/writ petitioners after determining it as per the provisions of the Act of 2013 but, at the same time, has also decided to continue with the present writ appeals filed against the impugned judgment. 9. 8. However, it appears that though the State Government has decided to disburse compensation to the private respondents/writ petitioners after determining it as per the provisions of the Act of 2013 but, at the same time, has also decided to continue with the present writ appeals filed against the impugned judgment. 9. Be that as it may, the only question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the award passed by the District Collector in L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012 and L.A. Case No.11/2012, in lieu of the acquisition of the lands, was finally approved by the competent authority on 31.12.2013 or on 09.01.2014? 10. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the note- sheets, certified copies of which are produced along with the writ petitions, recorded a finding that the award passed by the District Collector was approved by the State Government/ competent authority only on 09.01.2014, i.e. after 31.12.2013. However, the State is claiming that the District Collector has signed the award on 31.12.2013 and the same was approved on the very same day by the State Government/competent authority. 11. Having carefully scrutinizing the material, particularly the certified copies of the note-sheets on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance, we have no doubt in our mind that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the award signed by the Collector in L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012 and L.A. Case No.11/2012 was approved only on09.01.2014 is based on material available on record. 12. Apart from the above-referred note-sheets, it is more than clear from the other documents, annexed with the writ petitions as Annexure: 5-A and Annexure: 6A, that the signed award of the Collector was approved only in January, 2014 and not on 31.12.2013. It is to be noted that after passing of the award in the above-referred L.A. cases, the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India has written a D.O. letter to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, probably in the month of August, 2014, requesting to expedite the process of handing over of the land measuring about 106 Are at Village Bongora, Mouza Chayani in Kamrup District for setting up of IIIT, Guwahati to the Society of IIIT, Guwahati. Taking note of the said letter, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam has ordered to forward the copy of the D.O. letter sent by the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development and Department of Higher Education to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to expedite the handing over of the acquired land to IIIT, Guwahati and in the said note-sheet, it is clearly mentioned that the award has been approved in respect of the 3(three) L.A. cases, i.e. L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012 and L.A. Case No.11/2012, in January, 2014 only. The said note-sheet, wherein the D.O. letters of the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development and Department of Higher Education have been taken into consideration, is annexed along with WP(C) No.5730/2014 as Annexure: A-5-A, scanned copy of which is reproduced hereunder:- 13. The Additional Chief Secretary has approved the note of the Deputy Secretary and directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to handover the acquired land by 10.09.2019. 14. Similarly, in June, 2016, one Smti. Sudha Jain, wife of Mahavir Prasad Jain moved an application before the concerned authorities claiming that she is the bona fide purchaser of different plots of land, which fall within the acquired land in the 3(three) aforesaid L.A. Cases and, therefore, she is entitled to get compensation in lieu of acquisition of her land. It is prayed by her that the notice of land acquisition should be issued to her in her address only, with a further prayer not to make any payment of compensation to anybody else except her. The said letter was dealt with by the concerned authorities and the note-sheet prepared on the subject clearly reflects that the award in the above-referred 3(three) L.A. Cases was approved in January, 2014 only. The relevant note-sheets were annexed as Annexure: A-6-A in No.5730/2014, scanned copy of which is reproduced hereunder:- 15. In such circumstances, there is no manner of doubt in concluding that the final award in L.A. Case No.2/2012; L.A. Case No.1/2012 and L.A. Case No.11/2012 was approved by the State Government/competent authority only after 31.12.2013, precisely on 09.01.2014. 16. In view of the fact situation when the award signed by the District Collector was approved by the State/ competent authority on 09.01.2014 then the same became an award only on 09.01.2014 as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bailamma (Smt.) Alias Doddabailamma (supra). 16. In view of the fact situation when the award signed by the District Collector was approved by the State/ competent authority on 09.01.2014 then the same became an award only on 09.01.2014 as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bailamma (Smt.) Alias Doddabailamma (supra). Hence, we do not find any merit in these writ appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed.