Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Award As Per Court's Direction Can't Be Agitated For Not Computing Market Value Under 2013 Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in compliance with a judicial direction to frame it in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another vs. State of U.P and another cannot be assailed on the ground that the market value ought to have been computed as on 01.01.2014, the date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force.Possession having been taken and the compensation deposited, the Court held, the case fell within paragraph 36.2 of Delhi Airtech and not paragraph 36.1, and the directions in paragraph 37 of that decision governed the award.In Delhi Airtech, the Supreme Court held that where 80 per cent of the estimated compensation is not tendered and paid before possession is taken, as Section 17(3-A) of the Act of 1894 requires, possession is not taken in accordance with law, the vesting is not absolute and Section 11-A applies to lapse the acquisition. Where it is paid, Section 11-A does not apply, and the land-loser's right is to have the award made and recover the compensation.The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held,“Therefore, in stricto sensu the conditions as laid down in paragraph 36.1 of the Delhi Airtech (supra) are not applicable. However, the conditions as mentioned in paragraph 36.2 are applicable as the compensation has already been paid and the possession has also been taken in the year 2003. Moreover, as the Supreme Court did not hold the acquisition to have lapsed, therefore in the present case also the directions as given in paragraph 37 of the Delhi Airtech (supra) are applicable, and in light of the same the impugned award is to be examined.”The Varanasi Development Authority had acquired land in villages Karnadadi, Milki Chak, Sarai Mohan and Birwan in District Varanasi. The notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 was issued in 2000 and the declaration under Section 6 on in 2001. Possession was taken and made over to the Authority in 2003.Compensation was fixed by agreement at a meeting of 27th April 2011 chaired by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, at which the tenure-holders were present. Awards under Section 11(2) followed in 2012 covering 45.249 hectares of the 86.219 hectares acquired. For the rest, no award was made.Three rounds of litigation commenced with the notification for land acquisition. The first, a challenge to the Section 4 and 6 notifications that included the dispensation of the Section 5-A enquiry, which failed. The second, contending that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 11-A for want of an award, which was rejected on 29th July 2008, the Court holding that possession had been taken in accordance with law.In the third round, the writ Court there divided the petitioners into two sets. For those in whose favour awards had been made, the acquisition stood complete and could not be reopened. For the second set, in whose favour no award had been made and no compensation paid, it directed that their rights over the land would remain protected and that the respondents would claim no right over it unless an award was made in accordance with law, framed in light of Delhi Airtech and Aligarh Development Authority versus Megh Singh and others.That judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court in Jagmani Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, where the special leave petition remains pending without any interim order.The award for the remaining land was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi on 10th January 2024. The present petitioners, who form the second set, challenged it on grounds that the award ought to have been made under the Act of 2013, and the market value worked out as on 01.01.2014 rather than carried over from the award dated 20.09.2012. It was further submitted that 80 per cent of the compensation had not been deposited before possession was taken, so that Section 17(3-A) was not satisfied and the acquisition had lapsed. It was also urged that the Authority was not using the land for the Transport Nagar for which it was taken, but selling it to private entities at commercial rates.For the Authority it was submitted that the award had been made exactly as the Court directed in the third round, that the 80 per cent deposit stood concluded in the earlier litigation, and that grounds available then could not be revived now.The Court found that the earlier round had conclusively held, on the counter affidavit then before it, that the entire compensation had been deposited before 2012, and that the challenge founded on Section 11-A had already failed. The ground of non-deposit was therefore not open.“The judgment passed by this High Court still has binding precedential value, and the petitioners are bound by the directions given in the said judgment. Mere pendency of an SLP,...

Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Award As Per Court's Direction Can't Be Agitated For Not Computing Market Value Under 2013 Act: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Award As Per Court's Direction Can't Be Agitated For Not Computing Market Value Under 2013 Act: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers