Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the Land Acquisition case No. 7-A/82/2012- 13 which is pending before the Sub Division Officer. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire Land Acquisition Proceeding pending before Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Arang- Abhanpur, in Land Acquisition Case No. 7-A/82/2012-13. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash the notification issued under Sections 4, 6 & 9 of the Land Acquisition Act in Revenue Case No. 7-A/82/2012-13. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court pleased to quash the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and notice under Section 9 of the Act. 10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the award dated 29-06-2015 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.7-A/82/2012-13”. 2. The petitioners are challenging the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated for acquisition of their land in Land Acquisition Case No. 7-A/82/2012-13 on the ground that mandatory provisions under Section 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been followed which is violative of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as well as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners are further challenging award dated 29.06.2015 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 7-A/82/2012-13 on the ground that it violates Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Adhiniyam-1973). According to which the scheme should be prepared and notified in the Gazette Notification and within 2 years of the notification of the scheme, the objection and suggestions will be called. According to sub Section 4 of Section 50 of the Act, 1973, the objection should be heard and decided after giving proper opportunity of hearing. According to petitioners the provisions of Section 50 of Adhiniyam-1973 has not been followed which is mandatory in nature as from that only the public element in the project can be determined. 4. In the present matter no such notification under Section 50 was ever been published. According to petitioners the provisions of Section 50 of Adhiniyam-1973 has not been followed which is mandatory in nature as from that only the public element in the project can be determined. 4. In the present matter no such notification under Section 50 was ever been published. Neither any objection under sub Section 4 of Section 50 was called and heard as such the entire land acquisition proceedings is vitiated. According to the petitioners as the scheme has not been notified there is absolutely no public purpose and upon the whims and wishes of the authorities, the lands were being taken and it is being sold on higher rates. The petitioners who are mostly agriculturist their livelihood is based upon the agriculture. According to Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it has been mentioned that if the land acquisition proceedings are pending under old act and herein after coming into force of the Act 2013, the Act 2013 would be applicable and if within 12 months from the date of publication of declaration under Section 19 (old Act under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act) for acquisition of the land. In the present matter Gazette Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 27.09.2013 and as such 12 months period will be calculated from 27.09.2013 to 27.09.2014, however, after expiry of that one year period, the award was passed on 29.06.2015. On the basis of old Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as such the entire land acquisition proceedings vitiates and the award passed is liable to be quashed. 5. The case as projected by the petitioners, is that, all the petitioners are resident of Village- Navagaon, Revenue Circle Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, District- Raipur, C.G. They are all private land owners and their lands are proposed to be acquired by the State Government. On 03.01.2002 and 15.01.2002 orders were passed by the Department of Housing and Environment Government of Chhattisgarh by which without assigning any particular reason, it has been declared that lands of 61 villages including the village of the petitioners is falling within 30 kilometers radius of Jai Stambh Chowk Raipur and the sale and purchase of the lands in the aforesaid area is restricted and the registration of the said lands could not be done without prior permission of the Collector. Vide order dated 25.08.2005 an order was issued by the Department of Housing and Environment Government of Chhattisgarh, it was declared that until the development plan of the Naya Raipur Suburb/ Satellite Town was notified, the registration of sale and purchase of land would be prohibited and it cannot be done without prior permission of the Collector. Thereafter, again on 31.07.2006, the aforesaid order was modified by which it has been stated that the said prohibition will not be applicable to the registry of land if it is in favour of the New Raipur Development Authority (in short NRDA). 6. The land of the petitioners are situated at Village- Navagaon which is the fertile Mahanadi Basin. These lands are irrigated and double cropped. It is also admitted in the Development plan that the lands are irrigated and double fertile land. On 21.03.2013 a request was made by the New Raipur Development Authority (in short NRDA) on the basis of which a case was registered by the Sub Divisional Officer for acquisition of the land of village- Navagaon about 40 plots area 8.17 hectare, however, while passing the aforesaid order the provisions contemplated under Section 4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act has not been followed. Again on 10.04.2013 objections were invited. Some objections were raised and the same was recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer. The said objections were sent for approval before the Commissioner and subsequently, the Sub Divisional Officer has decided to issue the notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the respondent authorities proceeded with notification under Section 9 of the Act. Since the notification under Section 4 of the Act itself is not in accordance with law. The petitioners are required to be heard under Section 5 (A) of the Act, however, the petitioners never been heard. In the present matter there is total non compliance of the Section 5 (A) of the Act and hence it vitiates the entire land acquisition proceedings. During the pendency of this present petition, notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the petitioners. Since the entire land acquisition proceedings is vitiated, the non hearing of the petitioner as per Sections 6 and 9 of the Act. During the pendency of this present petition, notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the petitioners. Since the entire land acquisition proceedings is vitiated, the non hearing of the petitioner as per Sections 6 and 9 of the Act. It is evident from the record the State authorities by an arbitrary act have curtailed the rights of the petitioners to file their objections under Section 5 (A) of the Act and they have illegality taken their right of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The New Raipur Development Authority (in short NRDA) is a subsidiary of State Government and as such it would be in justice on the part of the petitioners, if the land is acquired in violation of Section 4, 6 & 9 of the Act. After coming into force of the Act 2013 as per Section 24 of the Act, if the land acquisition proceedings initiated before coming into force of the new Act if the same has not been done within one year from the date of coming into force of the new Act if within one year the proceedings of land acquisition proceedings is not completed then the entire land acquisition proceedings would come to an end and it is vitiated. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the land acquisition proceedings were not completed within one year from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2013 as such the entire land acquisition proceedings vitiates as well as the award dated 29.06.2015 and on this ground alone the petition deserves to be allowed. She has relied upon order dated 27.11.2018 passed in WPC No. 791/2016 which was confirmed in WA No. 30/2019 passed on 25.07.2024 in which the entire proceedings of land acquisition are quashed holding that since as per Section 24 of the Act of 2013 entire proceedings have not been completed within one year. Therefore, the land acquisition proceedings is vitiated. 8. The State Government has filed its reply inter alia denying the contentions raised by the petitioners. They have submitted that since establishment of new Capital was decided and development plan of New Raipur was under preparation. Therefore, it was notified that if any of the land owners want to sale their lands, they are free to sale their lands to New Raipur Development Authority (in short NRDA). They have submitted that since establishment of new Capital was decided and development plan of New Raipur was under preparation. Therefore, it was notified that if any of the land owners want to sale their lands, they are free to sale their lands to New Raipur Development Authority (in short NRDA). As alleged by the petitioners in respect of violation of provisions of Sections 4 , 6 & 9 of Act is concerned. The contention raised by the petitioners are ill founded. According to Section 55 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, if the land is to be used under any development plan then it would be deemed to be a public purpose. So the contentions raised by the petitioners that is being used for recreational and residential purpose and therefore it is not a public purpose is not correct. A large chunk of the land which is about 237.42 sq kms has already been acquired for the purpose of establishment of Naya Raipur. The petitioners are having only small area i.e. 8.17 hectares of land which falls in Layer 1 as such the land acquisition proceedings cannot be canceled. Since the land acquisition proceedings have been made while complying the provisions of Act 1894. Therefore, it is not violating of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In order to decide the case of the petitioners the entire development scheme has to be seen. The present parcel of the land falls within Layer 1 of the scheme which is for residential, educational, and recreational activities. During the course of development according to the plans certain piece of land is being used for the purposes of roads, drainage and other amenities and this piece of land though a part of entire project but the same cannot be used, however, the remaining land available would always fetch a higher price from the price which it has been acquired as such the allegations raised by the petitioners are ill founded. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 have submitted that since the entire land acquisition proceedings have been completed and thereafter award has also been passed as such it cannot be held that the entire land acquisition proceedings has been vitiated. 10. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 have submitted that since the entire land acquisition proceedings have been completed and thereafter award has also been passed as such it cannot be held that the entire land acquisition proceedings has been vitiated. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has objected the petition stating that earlier also a writ petition bearing WPC No. 6782/2011 was filed by the petitioners including some of the petitioners herein as such the petition is not maintainable. The proceedings have already been completed and award has been passed on 29.06.2015. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the award dated 29.06.2015 passed in the Land Acquisition proceedings. 12. In order to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner, the dates are required to be considered. The notification was issued on 21.03.2013 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . Thereafter, notification under Section 6 was to be published in the Gazette Notification dated 05.09.2013. The new Act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was published in the extraordinary Gazette of Government of India on 07 th September, 2013. The present writ petition was filed during the acquisition proceedings on 14 th May, 2014 and during the pendency of this petition award was passed on 29.06.2015 after getting consent of the inexigency President of India. The Act 2013 was published on 27 th September, 2013 and it was made applicable from 01.04.2013 . Now, the question would be whether the notification for Land Acquisition dated 21.03.2013 can be declared knowledge in the eyes of law and the subsequent award passed on 29.06.2015 can be declared not in accordance with law is to be decided on the basis of Sections 24 and 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 . 13. Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 reads as under:- “24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. 13. Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 reads as under:- “24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. -(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (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.” 14. Likewise Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 reads as under:- 25. Period within which an award shall be made. The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same. Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the author authority concerned. 15. From the aforesaid Sections of Act of 2013 which is ample clear that the Act of 2013 which came into existence on 01.01.2014 speaks that if the acquisition proceedings has been initiated under the old act of 1894, however, if the award has not been passed prior to 01.01.2014 then the award is required to be passed in accordance with Act of 2013. Then, the award is to be passed under sections. The second aspect which is required to be seen is that as per Section 25 of the Act 2013, if the award is not passed within 12 months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 (Section 19 is Section 6 of the old Land Acquisition Act) the entire proceedings for acquisition of the said land shall be lapsed. 16. It would be profitable to consider the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 which was decided on 02.01.2023. According to paragraph 366 of the said judgment several parameters have been fixed to decide the case of acquisition in which acquisition was made prior to come into the force of new Act 2014, however, the proceedings could not be concluded/ award could not be passed on the date fixed for passing of the order as per Section Section 25 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 . Section 366 of the said judgment reads 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. 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'. 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 land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land 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). 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 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 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." 17. The similar issue was came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 24, 26, 27, 28 and 47 of its judgment that:- “24. The similar issue was came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 24, 26, 27, 28 and 47 of its judgment that:- “24. A careful scanning of all the decisions cited by both sides would thus reveal that all those decisions hold that land acquisition proceedings under the LA Act begin with the publication of a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4. A declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is one of the steps under the LA Act which ultimately culminates into the conclusion of the proceedings by making an award and taking over possession of the acquired land. A declaration under Section 6 cannot be made without holding an inquiry unless urgency clause under Section 17 is applied. Publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act is condition precedent for taking further steps. Hence, such a notification is the starting point of acquisition proceedings under the LA Act. The initiation of the proceedings is by the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act. 26. We are of the considered view that while construing the expression "initiated" used in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act with reference to commencement of acquisition proceedings under the LA Act, the decision in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat ( (1987) 1 SCC 213 ] is also to be borne in mind. In Ambica Quarry Works case (supra) while construing the words "may be renewed" this Court held that all interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act concerned. 27. The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013 Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition for industrialisation, infrastructure and urbanisation projects in a timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons and their families. 27. The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013 Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition for industrialisation, infrastructure and urbanisation projects in a timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons and their families. As a Preamble its Objects and Reasons have been given in the 2013 Act thus: "An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." 28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid legislative intention we will have to construe Section 24 and also the word "initiated" employed in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. The word "initiated" has to be construed with a view to implement the aforesaid twin purposes of providing fair and just compensation and facilitating acquisition of land for industrialisation, infrastructure and urbanisation projects. We have already referred to the impact of "initiation" of land acquisition proceedings and its culmination in an award under Section 11 of the LA Act and also non-culmination in such an award. 47. To conclude, we hold that for the purposes of sub- section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the LA Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the LA Act. We further hold that when clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the LA Act. However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied.” 18. We further hold that when clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the LA Act. However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied.” 18. In the matter of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. Mahesh and others , reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para No.29, 30 and 31 of its judgment that :- “29. Given the object and purpose behind Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, we notice that practical absurdities and anomalies may arise if the two-year period for making of an award in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act commencing from the date of issue of the declaration is applied to the awards to be made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. This would mitigate against the underlying legislative intent behind prescription of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act. which is twofold: (i) to give sufficient time to the authorities to determine compensation payable under the 2013 Act; and (ii) to ensure early and expedited payment to the landowners by reducing the period from two years under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act to twelve months under Section 25 of the 2013 Act. In case of declarations issued in January 2012, on application of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act, the time to determine compensation under the 2013 Act would vary from a day to a month, and while in cases where the declarations were issued within twelve months of the repeal of the 1894 Act, the landowners would be at a disadvantage as an award beyond the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act would be valid. In the first set of cases, given the onerous factual and legal exercise involved in determination of compensation and the need to issue notification under Section 26(2) of the 2013 Act, publication of the awards would be impractical. Hasty and incorrect awards would be deleterious for the landowners. If the awards are not pronounced, the acquisition proceedings would lapse defeating the legislative intent behind Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act to save such proceedings. Hasty and incorrect awards would be deleterious for the landowners. If the awards are not pronounced, the acquisition proceedings would lapse defeating the legislative intent behind Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act to save such proceedings. We would, therefore, exercise our choice to arrive at a just, fair and harmonious construction consistent with the legislative intent. 30. A rational approach so as to further the object and purpose of Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act is required. We are conscious that Section 25 refers to publication of a notification under Section 19 as the starting point of limitation. In the context of clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act there would be no notification under Section 19, but declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. When the declarations under Section 6 are valid as on 1-1-2014, it is necessary to give effect to the legislative intention and reckon the starting point. In the context of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act are no different and serve the same purpose as the declarations under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. 31. Consequently, we hold that in cases covered by clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1-1-2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force. Awards passed under clause (a) to Section 24(1) would be valid if made within twelve months from 1-1-2014. This dictum is subject to the caveat. stated in paras 20 to 23 (supra) that a declaration which has lapsed in terms of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act before or on 31-12-2013 would not get revived.” 19. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Vitthal Rama Pawar (Katkari) and others Vs. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag and others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 149 , has held in para No.21 and 22 of its judgment as under :- "21. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Bane that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) has impliedly overruled its decision in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra). Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Bane that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) has impliedly overruled its decision in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra). This is more so when one take into consideration that the said Judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara. Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) has been specifically referred to in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in paragraph 9 thereof), and the same has not been overruled, either expressly or by necessary implication. Another factor that persuades us to take this view is that one of the Judges in both the matters was the same (A.M. Khanvilkar, J. as he then was). If the Supreme Court, in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited wanted to overrule its judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra), it would have expressly done so. We therefore find that the argument of Ms. Bane is wholly misplaced and so is the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial & infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra). 22. As mentioned earlier, this point is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) which clearly stipulates that in cases falling under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing an Award would commence from 1" January, 2014 and the same would have to be passed within a period of 12 months thereafter, subject to any stay being granted by any Court. In other words, the period during which the stay was operating would have to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the period of 12 months. This has admittedly not been done in the present case. Therefore, on this count also, the entire acquisition proceedings are bad and the Awards passed pursuant thereto, are also unsustainable.” 20. In other words, the period during which the stay was operating would have to be excluded for the purposes of calculating the period of 12 months. This has admittedly not been done in the present case. Therefore, on this count also, the entire acquisition proceedings are bad and the Awards passed pursuant thereto, are also unsustainable.” 20. The issue involved in this case has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, this Court cannot take a different view in the case having similar issue to that of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited case (supra) and The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation In vien t the afors the Development Corporation case (supra). In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that as per Section 25 of the new Act of 2013 that if the award has not been passed within 12 months, the entire proceeding for acquisition of the land shall lapse and liberty was given to the respondents to draw fresh proceedings of land acquisition if they still require any land for public purpose and thus, even if the old land acquisition proceeding has been lapsed/quashed the respondents/State have every right to initiate fresh land acquisition proceeding under the new Act of 2013 if they still requires any land for public purpose. 21. Accordingly, proceedings quashed qua the lands of the petitioners. Petition is allowed to the extent of the petitioners.