Today the petition is listed on IA No.1786/2020, an application for ad interim writ.

2. Since the pleadings are complete, hence, the petition is heard finally.

3. Petitioners are the daughter of Late Ranchhoddas Patidar, who was owner of the land bearing survey No.86/1 area 1.206 hectare situated at Gram Nisarpur, Tehsil Kukshi, District Dhar.

4. According to the petitioner, during his life time Ranchhoddas executed a registered will dated 29.11.2011 bequeathing the aforesaid land and the compensation in their favour, therefore, by virtue of will they have become owner of the land bearing survey No.86/1 area 1.206 hectare.

5. The aforesaid land bearing survey No.86/1 was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of oustees of Sardar Sarovar Project. After initiation of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 09.02.2002 calculating the compensation payable to Ranchhoddas. According to the petitioner, despite the award dated 09.02.2002 no compensation was paid to Ranchhoddas and the compensation was not taken. By virtue of will now they THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3921/2017 Smt. Godavri & Smt. Laxmi V/s. State of M.P. & Others -: 2 :- are into the possession and the respondents are trying to take their possession in pursuant to the aforesaid award. After the award the name of respondent No.2 has been mutated in the land record in place of the name of Ranchhoddas Patidar. Shri Patidar filed an application for correction in the land record and meanwhile he expired on 15.06.2012. Meanwhile w.e.f. 01.01.2014 New Land Acquisition Act " Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 " came into force in which Section 24 (2) specifically provides that an award which was passed prior to 5 years from the enforcement of Act, 2013 and the compensation is not paid and the possession has not been taken then the land acquisition proceeding shall stand lapse, therefore, the respondents have no authority to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. In support of their contention the petitioner placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another V/s. Harkchand Misrilal Solanki reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.

6. Vide order dated 05.09.2017 notices were issued to the respondent but no interim relief was granted.

7. The respondents have filed the return that on 09.02.2002 the award was passed in the name of father of the petitioner and total compensation for the acquired land was assessed Rs.2,16,239/-. Vide award dated 09.02.2002 compensation was awarded in favour of 54 agriculturists/ THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3921/2017 Smt. Godavri & Smt. Laxmi V/s. State of M.P. & Others -: 3 :- revenue account holders for acquisition of their land. Except the petitioner all the land owners have received their amount of compensation. The father of the petitioners was given information under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to declaration of the aforesaid award dated 09.02.2002 (Annexure R/3) but despite that he did not receive the aforesaid amount of compensation. It is further submitted that after passing the award the land in question was transferred in the name of State of Madhya Pradesh, Executive Engineer, N.V.D.A. The petitioners are not handing over the physical possession of the land in question to the respondent which had already been vested with the State Government. The present petition is suffers from delay and latches as same is filed after 15 years of the passing of the award. The issue decided in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another V/s. Harkchand Misrilal Solanki (Supra) has been referred to the Larger Bench.

8. Now, the petitioners have filed the rejoinder that after passing the award dated 09.02.2002 till today neither compensation was tendered/offered nor paid to the petitioners. They are still in possession over the land, therefore, by virtue of Section 24(2) of the New Act the proceeding has been lapsed. It is further submitted that the Larger Bench of the Apex Court has decided the issue in case of Indore Development Authority V/s. Manoharlal & Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 316 in which the Apex Court has clarified that the word "paid"

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3921/2017 Smt. Godavri & Smt. Laxmi V/s. State of M.P. & Others -: 4 :- in Section 31(1) to the land owner cannot include in its ambit the expression "deposited" in court. Deposit cannot be said to be payment made to land owners.

9. The expression paid in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in the Court. In the present case the amount of compensation never tendered to Ranchhoddas nor to the petitioners and there is no dispute about the possession of the land with the petitioners, therefore, now the petitioners cannot be evicted without acquisition of proceeding afresh by virtue of Section 24 (2) . It is further contended that the notice enclosed as Annexure R/3 has never been served upon the predecessor in title of the land in question and the respondent has not filed any document to show any point of time tendered/offered to the father of the petitioners with the period of 5 years as for the requirement of Section 24(2) in order to save the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed.

10. Undisputedly at the time of acquisition of land bearing survey No.86/1 was in the name of Late Ranchhoddas. He participated in the land acquisition proceeding and the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 09.02.2002 has assessed the compensation. The Commissioner, Indore Division has approved the total amount of compensation payable to the 54 land owners i.e. 2,56,91,972 and directed to deposit in the Court of Land Acquisition Officer. Notice dated 21.10.2002 was sent to Ranchhoddas by Land Acquisition Officer for acceptance of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3921/2017 Smt. Godavri & Smt. Laxmi V/s. State of M.P. & Others -: 5 :- the aforesaid amount of compensation Rs.2,16,239/- from the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Kukshi.

11. According to the petitioners, Ranchhoddas executed a will in their favour in respect of the land bearing survey No.86/1 which is filed as Annexure P/1. In Para 2 of the will Ranchhoddas has himself mentioned that land bearing survey No.86/1 has already been acquired and in Para 5 he gave the equal share to the petitioners in the amount of compensation and other benefits under the rehabilitation policy, therefore, Ranchhoddas was aware about the acquisition of the land and payment of compensation of land bearing survey No.86/1 and he bequeathing that right to receive compensation in equal share to the petitioners. The N.V.D.A. Deposited the entire amount of compensation in the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Kukshi and except petitioners 54 land owners have withdrawn the amount. The name of the respondent No.2 has already been mutated in the revenue record. After the death of Ranchhoddas on the basis of will petitioners never tried to get their name mutated in the revenue record.

12. So far the applicability of Section 24(2) in the present case is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority V/s. Manoharlal & Others (supra) has considered the provision of Section 24(2) in respect of payment/deposit of the compensation in Para 256 the Apex Court has held that if the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules framed under Section 54 or under the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3921/2017 Smt. Godavri & Smt. Laxmi V/s. State of M.P. & Others -: 6 :- standing order that carry the interest has envisaged under Section 34 but the acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case the amount has been tendered and the land owner has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that liability arising from the non-payment of amount is that of lapse of acquisition. The interest would follow in a case also due to non-deposit of amount.

Para 256 is reproduced below :-

13. In Para 363 the Apex Court has finally answered all the questions and according to Sub Para 4 also non-deposit of compensation in Court does not result in lapse of land THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.3921/2017 Smt. Godavri & Smt. Laxmi V/s. State of M.P. & Others -: 7 :- acquisition proceeding. In case of non-deposit with respect to majority of the holdings for 5 years or more the compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the land owner. In case person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) . The obligation of pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) of the Act.

14. Sub Paras 4 & 5 of Para 363 are reproduced below :-

15. In the present case except the petitioners all the 54 land owners had already received the compensation. The total amount of compensation was deposited by the N.V.D.A. before the Land Acquisition Officer. The father of the petitioner was served with the notice to receive the compensation but he choose not to receive the same at the relevant point of time. The name of the respondent No.2 has already been mutated by virtue of the award. The petitioners are only daughters of the original owner Ranchhoddas, who have been given right to receive compensation under the will, therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority V/s. Manoharlal & Others (supra) the present persons are not entitled to seek declaration that the proceeding has been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) . Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petitioners are directed to receive the compensation and handover the possession peacefully to the respondents without any obstruction or hindrance.