Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sabita Sharma And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 April, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 2.3.2023 Delivered on 7.4.2023 Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30088 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt. Sabita Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Alok Mishra,Kaushalendra Nath Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
(Delivered by Justice Sunita Agarwal)
1. Heard Sri Raj Narayan Tiwari learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ambarish Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent. Shri Alok Mishra, learned Advocate has received notices on behalf of the respondent-NOIDA.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners herein, who are heirs and legal representatives of Raghunath Rai Sharma son of Sri Munshiram Sharma, resident of 85 Model New Colony, Filmistan, New Delhi, the original tenure holder of Khasra No. 39M. area 0-14-0 Bigha situated in revenue Village Gejha Tilpatabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar, the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notifications dated 13.1.1995 and 21.9.1995 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; respectively, seek the following relief:-
"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondents authorities to make payment of compensation award for the acquired land in the year 1995 bearing Khasra No. 39M Area-0-14-0 bigha situated in Village Gejha Tilpatabad, Pargana, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar belonging to petitioner's ancestors namely Raghunath Rai Sharma as per the prevailing market rate in the light of Section - 24 (1) (a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within stipulated period otherwise to vacate the land in question forthwith along with suitable damages compensation.
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the pending representation dated 18.2.2021 within stipulated period.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Issue the award cost of this petition petitioner."
3. The assertions in the writ petition are that the symbolic possession of an area 44.312 acres of the acquired land was taken on 6.2.1998, however, possession of the remaining area of 76.848 acres could not be taken on account of the pendency of the writ petitions filed by one Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth and other tenure holders wherein interim order was granted by this Court. The writ petitions were dismissed on 7.4.2004 and Special Leave Petition Nos. 21130/2004 and 21143/2004 were dismissed on 21.4.2006. After dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the possession memo of 76.848 acres of acquired land was prepared on 31.5.2006, whereunder the possession of Khasra No. 39 area 2-9-0 Bigha had been taken. A copy of the possession memo is appended as Annexure ''4' to the writ petition.
4. It is stated in the writ petition that Khasra No. 39 area 1-15-0 Bigha (0.4430 hectares) was recorded in the name of Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth and Khasra No. 39M. area 0-14-0 Bigha was recorded in the name of Raghunath Rai Sharma, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein. The copy of the revenue record of Khasra No. 39, being in the name of Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth is appended as Annexure ''5' to the writ petition. However, the record of entry of Khasra No. 39M. in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Raghunath Rai Sharma has not been appended with the writ petition.
5. Be that as it may, the dispute raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the determination of compensation of Khasra No. 39M. area 0-14-0, i.e. 0.1771 hectares.
6. On the presentation of the writ petition, on the written instructions provided by the learned Standing Counsel dated 17.12.2022 under the signature of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar addressed to the learned Chief Standing Counsel, High Court, Allahabad, taking note of the stand of the respondent-State therein, the order dated 10.1.2023 had been passed by this Court. The contents of the written instructions has been extracted in the order dated 10.1.2023, which reads as under:-
"In the written instructions supplied by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar, it is indicated that total area 2-9-0 Bigha of Khasra no. 39 was acquired by acquisition notifications dated 13.1.1995 and 21.9.1995 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; respectively. It is sought to be submitted that the possession of the acquired land has been handed over to NOIDA on 31.5.2006. At the time of acquisition, over the area 1-15-0 of Khasra No. 39, Khata No. 306, the name of Maharishi Ved Vigyan Peeth Maharishi Ghaziabad was recorded in the revenue records whereas over the remaining area 0-14-0 of Khasra No. 39, Khata No.372 name of Raghunath Rai Sharma son of Munshi Ram Sharma, resident of 85 Model Nai Basti Philmistan, New Delhi was recorded. It is further recorded that compensation has not been received by the landowners. The award under the 'Karar Niyamawali' has been declared for those landowners who have given their consent. However, for the remaining area, there is no award. The contention is that proceeding for declaration of award to pay compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(in short "Act, 2013") is under way."
It may be noted that in the written instructions submitted on behalf the State, it was admitted that the name of Sri Raghunath Rai Sharma, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein was recorded over Khasra No. 39 area 0-14-0. It was also admitted that the tenure holders of Gata No. 39 in two Khata Nos. 306 and 372 did not receive compensation. It was also stated that the possession of the acquired land was handed over to the acquiring body namely NOIDA on 31.5.2006. The award for the acquired land under ''Karar Niyamawali' had been passed, but for the remaining area, no award had been declared and the proceedings for declaration of the award under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "the RFCTLARR Act, 2013") was underway.
Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 10.1.2023, an affidavit dated 6.2.2023 has been filed wherein a copy of the award dated 4.2.2023 declared by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Department/the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been placed on record. The said award dated 4.2.2023 has been made with respect to Gata No. 39M. area 0-14-0 bigha or 0.1771 hectares, purportedly under the order dated 10.1.2023 passed by this Court.
7. It may further be noted that the possession memo dated 31.5.2006 appended as Annexure '4' to the writ petition, noted above, shows that the possession of an area 2-9-0 of Gata No. 39, shown as Park, had been handed over to NOIDA on 31.5.2006. It is noted in the possession memo itself that the acquisition of total area 121.16 acres of revenue Village Gejha Tilpatabad, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar had been made by the acquisition notifications mentioned above. The possession of 44.312 acres was handed over to the Development Authority on 6.2.1998 and for the remaining area of 76.848 acres, the proceedings for delivery of possession could not be drawn on account of the pendency of the writ petitions, noted therein. After decision of this Court and the Apex Court dated 7.4.2004 and 21.4.2006; respectively, in the aforesaid challenge, the possession memo of 76.848 acres was drawn and possession was handed over to the Development Authority on 31.5.2006.
8. It is an admitted fact of the matter that Khasra No. 39 was recorded in the name of two persons namely Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth on an area of 1-15-0 Bigha (0.4430 hectares) and Khasra No. 39M. area 0-14-0 bigha, 0.1771 hectares in the name of Raghunath Rai Sharma, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It is, thus, evident that the total area of plot no. 39, which comes to 2-9-0, was handed over to the Development Authority after the decision of this Court in the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. It is also an admitted fact of the matter that award for the remaining area, compensation of which was not accepted by the tenure holders had not been declared and the only award under the ''Karar Niyamawali' of the acquired land had been declared.
The award dated 4.2.2023 declared under the order dated 10.1.2023 of Khasra No. 39 area 0-14-0 bigha (0.1771 hectares) further indicates that for determination of the market value of the plot in question, the cut-off date has been determined as the date of Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in view of a Government Order dated 1st June, 2015, reference of which finds place in the award itself. The copy of the Government Order dated 1st June, 2015 has been provided by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the compilation supplied by them.
9. A perusal thereof indicates that it was issued with reference to a communication dated 18th March, 2015 of the Commissioner and Director, Land Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, seeking clarification with reference to the determination of cut-off date for determination of market value, in such matters where acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 had been issued prior to 1.1.2014. It was clarified therein that the cut-off date for determination of market value in such matters would be treated as the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1), under the Act, 1894.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, relied on a notification dated 26th October, 2015 issued by the Government of India, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
11. The submission is that the said notification clarifies doubt and settles the dispute relating to the reference date for calculation of market value under Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and provides that 1.1.2014 shall be the date for calculation of market value in view of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The dispute, thus, pertains to the cut-off date under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for applying the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
12. In the rival submissions, both the counsels for the petitioners and the State Government and NOIDA, relied upon the above noted notifications issued by the Central Government and the State of U.P., to assert their stand with regard to the date of determination of date for computation of market value in cases where the award is made after enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 though proceedings for acquisition had been commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
13. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are first required to go through the object and purpose of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the relevant provisions thereof.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had been enacted with the objective to provide fair compensation to those whose land is taken away, to bring transparency to the process of acquisition of land for infrastructural projects, to set up factories or buildings and to assure rehabilitation of those affected. In the statement of objects and reasons of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, it was noted that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relating to acquisition of land for public purpose and also for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition, have been found to be inadequate in addressing certain issues relating to the exercise of the statutory powers of the State for involuntary acquisition of private land and property, the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons and, their families. In order to provide a unified legislation dealing with acquisition of land, to provide for just and fair compensation and to make adequate provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for the affected persons and their families, the bill for repealing and replacing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to seek the above objectives, had been introduced in the Lok Sabha on 7th September, 2011 and received assent of the President in 2013. The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was passed by both the Houses of Parliament, received assent of President on 27th September, 2013 and has been brought into force on 1.1.2014. Section 24 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relevant for our purposes is noted hereunder:-
"Section 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1984 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."
Section 113 and Section 114 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are also relevant to be noted hereunder:-
"Section 113. Power to remove difficulties.
(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Part, the Central Government may, by order, make such provisions or give such directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty:
(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament.
Section 114. Repeal and saving.
(1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals."
A conjoint reading of the above noted provisions indicates that with the coming into force of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 w.e.f. 1.1.2014, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stood repealed.
14. Section 24(1), however, deals with certain situations which arose on account of repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
15. It starts with a non-obstante clause and sub-section (1) of Section 24 provides certain contingencies in which the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were to be continued. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) deals with the contingencies where award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 had not been made in the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 and states that all provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply.
We may further note that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 saves the entire proceedings of acquisition of land initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where award under Section 11 of the said Act had already been made. It is provided therein that the such proceedings shall continue under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
Sub-section (2) of Section 24 deals with the situation where neither the compensation had been paid nor the possession of the acquired land under 1894 Act had been taken. The interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 24 has been made by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others1 and the dispute pertaining to the interpretation of the said provision, from various angles has been set at rest. For the issues raised herein, the provisions of sub-section (1)(a) of Section 24 are relevant.
16. The question is as to where no award has been made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while making an award by applying the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relating to the determination of compensation, what would be the date for determination of market value, whether it would be the date of enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, i.e. 1.1.2014 or the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 as provided in Section 23(1) of the Act, 1894.
17. From the provisions of Section 24 read with section 114 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, it can be discerned that the provisions pertaining to determination of compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, providing for determination of amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, 1894, stood repealed. The provision as contained in sub-section (1) of Section 23, for determination of the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, therefore, cannot be applied. The only saving to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of 2013 Act. The general application of sub-section (6) of the General Clauses Act, 1894 with regard to the effect of repeals, as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 114 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not applicable to the proceedings for determination of compensation in the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The result is that as per clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24, when no award has been made under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, all the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply.
In a case where award under Section 11 had been made before commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, all subsequent proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Act, 1894 as if the Act has not been repealed.
18. Now the question remains as to what would be the procedure applicable for determination of compensation under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
19. We may note the provisions of Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which provides the criteria to be adopted by the Collector in assessing and determining the market value of the land, the relevant clauses (a), (b) and (c) and the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 26 are extracted hereunder:-
"26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:--
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11."
As per the proviso to sub-section (1), the date of determination of market value for acquisitions under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which provides for publication of preliminary notification, notifying the intention of the appropriate Government to acquire land in any area for any public purpose. Section 11 of 2013 Act is pari materia to Section 4 of the Act, 1894 in the matter of issuance of declaration of preliminary notification of proposal of acquisition. Thus, in a case where acquisition is made after enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, i.e. on or after 1.1.2014, there cannot be a dispute about the date of determination of market value for the purposes of computation of compensation. However, there remained an ambiguity with regard to the transitional phase on the applicability of Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
20. On the ambiguity of the date of determination of market value in the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award had been made under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 before enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the Central Government had issued a notification dated 26th October, 2015, on the similar issue raised by the Government of Maharashtra. In the D.O. No.13013/01/2014-LRD(Pt), dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Joint Secretary (LR), Government of India, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, copy of which was forwarded to all Principal Secretaries of the States/UTs for information and necessary action, the issues raised by the Government of Maharashtra for calculation of market value under Section 24(1)(a) has been resolved as under:-
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).
21. 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.
22. In view of the statutory character of the D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015, it is evident that the reference date for calculation of market value under Section 24(1)(a) should be 1.1.2014, the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The said D.O. letter dated further clarifies that under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 though the reference date is the date of preliminary notification but Section 24 is the special case of application of the Act, 2013 in retrospective cases and a later date of determination of market value, i.e. 1.1.2014 is suggested with a view to ensure that the land owners/farmers/affected families get enhanced compensation under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, in terms of the recommendation of the Standing Committee in its 31st report.
(emphasis supplied)
23. In view of the directions contained in the D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015 issued by the concerned Ministry of Central Government, the reliance placed on the notification dated 1st June, 2015 issued by the Government of U.P. is wholly misplaced.
24. In any case, the said notification of the State Government lost its efficacy with the clarification given by the Central Government by issuing directions under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 by means of D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into while making computation of compensation by the Collector in the award made on 4.2.2023, wherein the date of determination of market value had been treated as 13.1.1995, the date of publication of the notification under Section 4/17 of the Act, 1894, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1894 read with Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The direction issued by the Central Government under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 has been completely ignored.
25. We may further note the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and 3 others2; Prahlad Singh and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others3; Krishna Autar and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others4 and Ishan International Educational Society Thru' Director vs. State of U.P. & 3 others5 which have taken the same view by considering the directions contained in D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015 under Section 113 of 2013 Act, noted above, in holding that the date of determination of the market value of the land in the matters falling under Section 24(1)(a) shall be treated as 1.1.2014 in terms of the directions issued by the Central Government. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had been directed therein to redetermine the market value of the land in question as on 1.1.2014 by making fresh award.
26. The Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17660 of 2017 (Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Ishan International Educational Society & others) challenging the judgment and order dated 9.5.2017 in Ishan International Educational Society (supra) has been dismissed on 19.7.2017 by the Apex Court holding that there was no legal and valid ground for interference. Similar is the position with regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Autar (supra) where Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 26271 of 2017 (Moradabad Development Authority vs. Krishna Autar & Ors) had been dismissed on 14.11.2017. The review petition filed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17660 of 2017 [in the matter of Ishan International Educational Society (supra)] had also been dismissed on 5th December, 2017.
In Hori Lal (supra), the issue raised before the Division Bench of this Court was about the date of determination of compensation in the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894. It was argued on behalf of the writ petitioners therein that the date for determination of the market value of the land should be the date on which awards were made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the year 2015-16 and it cannot be 1.1.2014, which was turned down by the Division Bench relying on the D.O. letter dated 26.10.2015 issued under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the provisions of 2013 Act in the matter of determination of compensation. The judgment and order dated 9.3.2017 of the Division Bench in Hori Lal (supra) was challenged in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14820 of 2017 by the writ petitioner therein. On conversion into Civil Appeal No. 1462 of 2019, with the grant of leave, the appeal had been dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 5th February, 2019.
27. A perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1462 of 2019 (Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and others), makes it evident that the challenge before the Apex Court was with regard to the date for determining the compensation and it was contended that it should be the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award. The Apex Court has rejected the said arguments in the following manner:-
"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"
The view taken by the Division Bench in Hori Lal (supra) with respect to the date of determination of compensation being 1.1.2014, in land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 after commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 has, thus, been affirmed.
28. In another decision dated 12th February, 2019, in Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2016, in Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 2016 (Aligarh Development Authority vs. Megh Singh and others), the Apex Court has held that the date of determination of market value should be recorded as 1.1.2014 in view of the Central Government orders under Section 113 of the Act. The above noted decision in the case of Hori Lal (supra), the judgment of this Court dated 9.5.2017 in Ishan International Educational Society (supra) have been relied upon to issue direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh therein to redetermine the compensation as per the market value as on 1.1.2014, by setting aside the award dated 5.11.2016 therein.
Various other orders of the Apex Court in the review applications filed in the above noted cases have been placed before us in the compilation supplied by the counsel for the petitioners to assert that the issue relating to determination of market value as on 1.1.2014 in a case falling under Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is no longer res integra.
29. In view of the above discussion, the award dated 4.2.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar is found to be contrary to the legal position stated above and, hence, it cannot be given effect to. The concerned officer namely the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to make a fresh award by determining the market value of the land in Gata No. 39M. area 0-14-0 or 0.1771 hectares, by considering the market value of the land in question as on 1.1.2014. It would be open for the petitioners herein/land owners to place the exemplars before the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar/Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine the market value. The officer concerned shall be under obligation to determine just and fair market value of the land in question and compute compensation by including all elements of compensation, strictly in accordance with the provisions of determination of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The amount of compensation determined under the award shall be released by the competent authority within a further period of two weeks, thereafter, in favour of the tenure holders/persons interested after due determination of their share of entitlement and verification of their identity.
With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Sunita Agarwal,J.) Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Brijesh