Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The RC has also erred in failing to multiply the market value assessed by the relevant factor as provided in Section 26(2) of the RFCTLARR Act 2013.

While questioning the correctness of the development cut of 1/3rd applied by the RC, the learned counsel has contended that once the comparable sale instances of the contemporaneous period have been produced, the decision to impose 1/3rd cut, on the base value, is erroneous.

4.6 Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State of Haryana contends that the RC has neither decided the cases in accordance with Section 26 read with Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, nor it has taken into consideration the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana. It has further been contended that there has been a downfall in the 10 of 26 Regular First Appeal No. 728 of 2019 (O&M) AND 11 Other Connected Cases real estate market, therefore, the prices are not likely to increase in a consistent manner.

4.8 As regards the issue of the communication dated 26.10.2015, the matter has been examined by this Bench in State of Haryana and Another v. Rajbir and Another (Regular First Appeal No. 309 of 2021, decided on 19.04.2022), the relevant part thereof is extracted as under:-

"14. Section 23 of the 1894 Act specifically provides that the crucial date for assessment of the market value of the acquired land shall be the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. Further, the additional amount/benefit under sub-section(1-A) of Section 23 of the 1894 Act is, also, required to be calculated from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the acquired land whichever is earlier. Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 which specifically takes care of 11 of 26 Regular First Appeal No. 728 of 2019 (O&M) AND 12 Other Connected Cases transitional period between the 1894 Act and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, does not provide that the date of enforcement of the Act shall be construed as the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(2) or Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 26 provides that the date of determination of the market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Notification under Section 11 is a preliminary notification issued by the Government expressing its desire to acquire the land.
15. Further, Section 30(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, provides that the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value is required to be calculated from the date of publication of notification for conducting Social Impact Assessment Study of the proposed land under sub- section (2) of Section 4 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. If the communication is considered as a direction issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 113 and the date of such assessment of the market value is taken as 01.01.2014, then, the same shall not only be in violation of Section 24 of the 1894 Act but also an infringement of the proviso to Section 26 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Clause 5 of Section 24 of the 1894 Act provides that any increase in the value of the acquired land 12 of 26 Regular First Appeal No. 728 of 2019 (O&M) AND 13 Other Connected Cases which is likely to accrue from the use to which it might be put when acquired is to be ignored. In fact, by the aforesaid letter, the goalpost itself is sought to be changed. The date of assessment of the market value of the acquired land either under the 1894 Act or RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is sought to be overridden/surpassed. Both the Acts are based on the fundamental rule that the date of preliminary notification shall be the date for assessment of the market value. Once, there is no specific provision providing for assessment as on 01.01.2014, in the considered opinion of the Court the communication should be construed as arbitrary and ultra- vires to the provisions of both the Acts.
17 & 18 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
19. This matter for the purpose of interpretation can be considered from yet another perspective. If the intention of the Legislature was to apply all the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, there was no necessity to enact a hybrid provision like Section 24(1)(a). In such case, it would have contained a provision that the pending or incomplete acquisition proceedings, shall lapse and the acquiring authority will start the proceedings afresh under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. On a careful reading of Section 24(1)(a), it is evident that only the provisions relating to determination of compensation of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 have been made applicable while saving the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. The Legislature does not also provide that all the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, shall be applicable with respect to the incomplete proceeding under the 1894 Act. 20 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX