Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 693 (ALL)

Pyare Lal v. Union Of India

2024-03-05

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Suman Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 5 in Writ-C No.31120 of 2019 and Shri Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 5 in Writ-C No.33836 of 2019 and Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have assailed the award dated 26.12.2015 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization, Bareilly, one of the respondents. The award has been purportedly made under the saving clause embodied in Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act, 2013'). 3. The acquisition was initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act). The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the old Act was issued on 17.10.2005 followed by notification under Section 6 dated 16.10.2006. Since, the provisions of Section 17(4) and 17(1) were invoked at the time of issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the old Act respectively, therefore, the State-respondents proceeded to take possession of the acquired land on 18.01.2007, even before making the award. Before award could be made, the new Act, 2013 was enforced with effect from 01.01.2014. 4. Section 24 of the new Act, 2013, which is relevant for the controversy involved in the instant petition, is as follows: "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,— (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such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.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." 5. Thus, under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 where no award under Section 11 of the old Act has been made, then all provisions of the new Act, 2013 relating to determination of compensation have been made applicable. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, while making award on 26.12.2015, admittedly, after enforcement of the new Act, 2013, determined the compensation with reference to the date of notification under Section 4 of the old Act i.e., 17.10.2005. He took into consideration the sale deeds executed three years prior to the notification under Section 4 and placing reliance on a sale deed dated 20.06.2005 executed by Nanu Ram, Moti Ram, Chatarni Lal, Hori Lal sons of Bhajan Lal in favour of Om Wati wife of Shyam Bihari in respect of Gata no.222/0.061 hectare at the rate of 60,000/hectare determined the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of express language of sub-section (1) of Section 24 read with Central Government Notification dated 26.10.2015, the reference date for determining the compensation would be 1st of January, 2014 and not the date of notification under Section 4 of the old Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of express language of sub-section (1) of Section 24 read with Central Government Notification dated 26.10.2015, the reference date for determining the compensation would be 1st of January, 2014 and not the date of notification under Section 4 of the old Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Division Bench judgements of this Court in Writ-C No.44731 of 2016 (Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and Others), Writ-C No.15804 of 2016 (Prahlad Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others), Writ-C No.44720 of 2016 (Krishna Autar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others), Writ-C No.60276 of 2015 (Ishan International Educational Society Thru' Director vs. State of U.P. and Others) and in Writ-C No.30088 of 2022 (Smt. Sabita Sharma and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 07.04.2023. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Government tried to contend that the award impugned rightly determines the compensation with reference to the date under Section 4 of the old Act. It is urged that the compensation amount under the impugned award has already been deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, now, there is no occasion to interfere with the same. 8. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents adopts the same line of argument. 9. Thus, the main issue for consideration is the date in relation to which the value of the acquired land was to be determined while making award under the saving clause embodied in Section 24(1)(a) of the new Act, 2013. 10. In Smt. Sabita Sharma (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after examining various earlier Division Bench judgements of this Court and most of which were upheld with the dismissal of special leave petitions filed before the Supreme Court and in one case, namely, Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and Others with dismissal of Civil Appeal No.1462 of 2019, held that the relevant date would be 01.01.2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the new Act, 2013. The judgement takes notice of Section 113 of the new Act, 2013, which empowers the Central Government to make such provisions or give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, 2013, as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removal of the difficulty. It has been held that in exercise of said power, the Central Government had issued a D.O. No.13013/01/2014-LRD(Pt) dated 26.10.2015 wherein the issue at hand was specifically answered in reference to a query raised by the Government of Maharashtra. The relevant part of the said D.O. is extracted below: S.No. Issues raised by the Government of Maharashtra Opinion of the DoLR 1. While determining the amount of compensation under Section 27 of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders are followed or cost of assets have to be separately computed in addition to cost of land? Under Section 26 of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 market value of land is determined while under section 27, value of all assets attached to the land is added to the market value to determine the amount of compensation. Thus, it is not contradictory to the Supreme Court's orders quoted in the letter of Maharashtra Government. 2 Under Section 24(1), the reference date for calculating 12% interest should be date of preliminary notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under section 24(1), the reference date for calculating 12% interest should be date of preliminary notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Department of Land Resources agrees to this, as there is no other reference date, that can be treated as equivalent to date of SIA notification under the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013. 3 For calculation of market value, under Section 24(1)(a), reference date should be 01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013) or date of issuing preliminary notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894? The reference date for calculation of market value, under Section 24(1)(a) should be 01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013), as the Section reads "in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 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. Under section 26 reference date is date of preliminary notification, but section 24 is a special case of application of the Act in retrospective cases, and a later date of determination of market value is suggested (i.e., 01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land owners/farmers/affected families get enhanced compensation under the provisions of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 (as also recommended by Standing Committee in its 31st report). 11. The Division Bench, thereafter, concluded as follows: "From a perusal of the D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015, issued by the concerned Ministry of the Central Government forwarded to the Principal Secretary of the State of U.P., for information and necessary action, it is evident that the said direction was made in order to remove difficulty arose in giving effect to the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, in the matter of calculation of market value under Section 24(1)(a), in the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894. The said directions issued by the Central Government being in exercise of the power under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 have statutory force and are binding on all the State Government being in view of the power conferred on the Central Government to make such provision or give such directions which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, for removal of any difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013." 12. It is noteworthy that when same view was taken by an earlier Division Bench in Hori Lal (supra), the matter travelled to Supreme Court and the Civil Appeal No.1462 of 2019 (Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and Others) was dismissed by the Supreme Court repelling the contention that the relevant date would be the date on which the award was made. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court that relevant date would be 1st of January, 2014 was thereby upheld. The relevant extract from the said judgement of the Supreme Court is as follows: "20. We, therefore, find no good ground to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when he contended that the date for determining the compensation should be the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. The relevant extract from the said judgement of the Supreme Court is as follows: "20. We, therefore, find no good ground to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when he contended that the date for determining the compensation should be the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. This argument does not have any basis and is, therefore, not acceptable for the simple reason that such date is not provided either in the old Act, 1894 or in the Act, 2013. 21. Indeed, how the compensation is required to be determined and with reference to what date, is provided under the Act and admittedly the date suggested by the learned counsel is not the date prescribed either in the old Act or the new Act. This submission has, therefore, no merit and deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. 22. We, therefore, find no good ground to take a different view than what was taken by the High Court in the impugned order" 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the issue is no more res integra. The relevant date for determining the compensation in respect of acquisition initiated under the old Act but where award could not be ade by the time the new Act, 2013 came into force, would be 1st of January, 2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the new Act, 2013. 14. Concededly, in the instant case, the market value has been determined by taking into consideration the exemplar sale deed of the year of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the old Act, which is contrary to the legislative intent and the law laid down in series of Division Bench judgements of this Court referred to above. 15. As a result, the impugned award is hereby quashed. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to pass fresh award treating the relevant date with reference to which market value is to be determined as 01.01.2014, the date of commencement of the new Act, 2013. 16. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 17. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.