Land Acquisition Authority Award Executable As Decree By District Judge, However Can't Entertain Objections On Merits: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an award of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, being a deemed decree, is executable by the District Court.

Justice Jaspreet Singh held that the District Court executing it acts merely as an executory arm and cannot entertain objections on the merits of the award or go behind it, whether under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the adjudicatory provisions of Order XXI CPC. It further held that the bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts in Section 63 of the Act does not operate upon the District Court for the purpose of executing a LARRA award.

The finding arose in a batch of 45 petitions under Article 227 in which the Sashastra Seema Bal (referred to as SSB or the requiring body), the Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority and the Lucknow Development Authority challenged the authority of LARRA to execute its own awards, while three land owners sought expedition of their execution cases pending before it.

Justice Jaspreet Singh held that LARRA has no power to execute its own award, and went on to consider where the holder of such an award must go.

The Court held that although the power of execution could not be read into the Act, that did not leave the award holder remediless. The award attains the status of a deemed decree, becomes executable as such, and is to be executed by the court of competent jurisdiction, the District Court, which possesses the judicial and legal wherewithal, including coercive powers, to get a decree executed.

“It may also be clarified that, District Court entitled to execute the award would be the Court of Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction i.e. the District Judge.”

Since LARRA is manned by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge, or by a legal practitioner of not less than seven years' standing, the Court reasoned that its award would be executed by a court of similar status and grade, and not by any court lower in the hierarchy of the District Judge. On the scope of that court's powers, it held that the status of a decree carries the award into the District Court for enforcement alone.

“At this stage, it will also be relevant to clarify that merely because the award attains the status of a decree which may be presented before the District Court for its execution, if so required, but the Court which executes the decree is merely the executory arm and it confines itself to execution only and does not adopt the adjudicatory powers and role of an Executing Court envisaged under the CPC. Hence, the said Court executing a decree would not entertain a challenge to the said award of LARRA on merits by going behind it or on grounds akin to ones expressed in Section 47 CPC or other like adjudicating provisions in terms of Order XXI CPC.”

The Court held that at most, the executing court may consider a procedural infraction of the provisions it itself employs to get the award executed. However, it held that the executing court is prevented from entertaining any objection substantive in nature which may impact LARRA's adjudication, the award being open to challenge only through the appellate hierarchy provided by the Act of 2013.

“Thus, under the Act of 2013, once the award attains the status of a deemed decree and is presented before the District Court for its enforcement, then it is only the enforcement part which is to be carried out by the District Court and it does not include the power to adjudicate.”

The Court observed that it would be incongruous to subject enforcement to the full rigour of Order XXI CPC when adjudication had been freed of procedural technicality.

“Moreover, where the proceedings of reference under the Act of 2013 is summary in nature (as per procedure) then it would be paradoxical to suggest that for execution all rigorous of Order XXI CPC would be applicable and it would lead to a situation such as, what was gained by one hand by the New Act is lost by the other hand by making the award subject to all formal and technical rules of procedure. Surely, this cannot be intent of Law.”

The Court accordingly turned down the submission of counsel for the requiring bodies that while the award was to be sent to the civil court for execution, that court would execute it including by entertaining objections under Section 47 CPC, holding that this was not envisaged by the scheme of the Act.

“Moreover, any objection on merits, entertained directly or indirectly impacting the award during execution by the District Court, would breach the bar of jurisdiction which is not permissible, hence, would make the action of the Executing Court contrary to law and would be hit by Section 63 of the Act of 2013.”

On the bar in Section 63, the Court held that it is limited and operates only in respect of matters exclusively cognizable by LARRA in terms of Sections 51 and 64, and does not operate upon the District Court for the purposes of executing an award passed by LARRA.

The Court further held that a land owner holding a finalised award is not confined to execution before the District Court. Noting that a citizen has precious rights in property recognised by Article 300-A of the Constitution, it observed that the requiring body may itself fall within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12, and that the State and its instrumentalities get no special status in the matter of paying compensation.

“While accomplishing this objective of the Act, it cannot be understood that the adjudication be done swiftly, but when its time to pay then create a situation to prolong the execution or enforcement of the award, by making the land-owners run from forum to another forum.”

Holding that the powers of the High Court cannot be abridged or taken away by any Act, the Court held that where the requiring body fails to pay within a reasonable time or delays unreasonably even in execution, the land owner may take recourse to constitutional remedies.

“Thus, once the amount, rights and obligations have been crystallized upon the award becoming final, then it becomes an undisputed right in favour of the holder of such award and a reciprocating and undisputed obligation for the person/entity against whom such an award operates and in such circumstances an aggrieved person can maintain a writ petition for enforcement of the award.”

Relying on various judgments, the Court observed that where money claims arising out of contractual obligations stand crystallized against the State and its action becomes arbitrary, a person may enforce the right through writ jurisdiction, and that the same course is open for enforcing rights finalised under the Act of 2013.

Accordingly, the petitions of the requiring bodies were allowed and the orders passed by LARRA in exercise of executory powers were set aside, LARRA being directed to desist from executing its awards. The three petitions filed by land owners seeking expedition of their execution proceedings before LARRA were held not to survive and were disposed of accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioners :- Abhineet Jaiswal, Bhanu Bajpai, Paavan Awasthi, Vijay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondents :- ASGI, CSC, Amit Jaiswal, Amrita Yadav, Ankit Verma, Harsh Vardhan Singh, Kshemendra Shukla, Mustafa Ahmad Khan, Prabhat Kumar, Ram Dheeraj, Rani Singh, Vijay Kumar Srivastava