3] We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. In all these 3 writ petitions, same award is the subject matter of challenge. The amendment with regard to noncompliance of Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been allowed in W.P. No. 1077 of 2007. All these petitions will have to be decided together. The challenge is to the award passed by the respondents. The Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 has come into effect from 1.1.2014 and the challenge to the same award is being sought on the additional ground, i.e. on the ground of Section 24(2) of the Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013. The said challenge would be on a legal premise only. The same can be said to be an additional ground. However, whether the petitioners would be in a position to establish their case is a different matter altogether. It is trite that merits of the amendment application cannot be considered at the time of deciding the amendment application. Whether there is noncompliance of Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act or whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, is a debatable issue, which the respondents will be entitled to controvert at the time of deciding the writ petitions. The respondents will also have an
