Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Hori Lal, owned land that was acquired by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the construction of the Varanasi Bye-Pass (Ring Road). The acquisition was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification under Section 4(1) issued on 30.10.2002, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 29.11.2003. The urgency clause under Section 17 was invoked, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed on 01.01.2014 and replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 30.06.2016, after the repeal, determining compensation. The appellant challenged the entire acquisition proceedings and the award before the Allahabad High Court. However, during the hearing, the appellant gave up the challenge to the acquisition and confined the challenge to the manner of compensation determination and its quantum. The State relied on an order under Section 113 of the Act, 2013, contending that compensation would be determined based on the market value as on 01.01.2014. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that in light of the State's stand, nothing survived, and granted liberty to the appellant to seek a reference for compensation determination under the Act, 2013. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed the issue of whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition. After hearing arguments, the Court found no merit in the appeal. It held that the State's stand to determine compensation with the base date of 01.01.2014 was beneficial to the appellant, as it allowed compensation under the new Act despite the acquisition under the old Act. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the date of the award should be the base date, noting that such a date is not prescribed under either Act. The Court also noted that the challenge to acquisition was abandoned, and thus not examined. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was entitled to seek redetermination of compensation under the Act, 2013 as per the liberty granted by the High Court.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Base Date - Section 4(1), Section 17, Section 5A, Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 113 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The appellant's land was acquired under the old Act of 1894, but the award was passed after the repeal of that Act. The State agreed to determine compensation as per the new Act of 2013 with the base date of 01.01.2014 as per the Central Government's order under Section 113. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the appellant was entitled to compensation under the new Act with the base date of 01.01.2014, and rejected the appellant's contention that the date of award should be the base date. (Paras 15-21) B) Land Acquisition - Challenge to Acquisition - Abandonment of Challenge - The appellant expressly gave up the challenge to the acquisition proceedings before the High Court, confining the challenge only to the quantum of compensation. The Supreme Court declined to examine the validity of the acquisition proceedings. (Paras 11, 23) C) Land Acquisition - Remedy - Reference for Compensation - The High Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek reference to the competent authority for determination of compensation under the Act, 2013. The Supreme Court affirmed this direction. (Paras 13, 24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition challenging the compensation determination, and whether the compensation should be determined with reference to the date of award or the date specified under the new Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013 with the base date of 01.01.2014, and rejected the appellant's contention that the date of award should be the base date. The appellant was granted liberty to seek redetermination of compensation under the Act, 2013 as per the High Court's direction.
Law Points
- Land acquisition compensation
- Repeal of Act 1894
- Applicability of Act 2013
- Base date for compensation determination
- Section 113 of Act 2013
