IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – In a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of Act, 1894, due to pendency of any proceedings and/or interim stay granted by Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to compensation under Section 24(1) of Act, 2013 and they shall be entitled to compensation only under Act, 1894.
(2) Restitution – A person on right side of law should not be deprived, on account of effects of litigation.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgments and orders/orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein-original landowners by which the High Court has disposed of the said writ petitions by directing the respective appellants-Development Authorities to pay the compensation to the original landowners as per “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 2013)” on the ground that on the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1894”) was declared with respect to the lands acquired, the respective Development Authorities have preferred the present appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022

3. Land totally measuring 17.172 hectares in village Ranopali, District Faizabad was requisitioned by the Faizabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) for the purpose of residential project. The land therein included land admeasuring 03.13 hectares in Plot Nos. 407, 413 and 415 belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the “original landowners”).

3.1 Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 read with Section 17 was issued. The original landowners preferred Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 before the High Court challenging the acquisition with respect to the aforesaid three plots. The High Court granted interim stay restraining the Authority from taking over the possession of the aforesaid three plots. Except the aforesaid three plot, the possession of the entire land was taken over by the Authority. Even the Award under Section 11 of Act, 1894 was also declared except in respect of the aforesaid three plots in question, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and due to the interim order passed by the High Court. It is this significant fact, which has led us to consider this case in light of the real intention of the Parliament under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Thus, excluding the land involved in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e. the aforesaid three plots, possession of the remaining property was taken over on 07.09.2005 and Award therein was published on 10.04.2007. A total sum of Rs. 5,11,60,606.00 was made available on different dates with respect to the compensation to be paid.

3.2 Vide order dated 27.09.2010, the High Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 preferred by the respondents herein by directing the State Government to consider the application/representation submitted by the original landowners under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1894. That the Appropriate Authority rejected the representation/ application of the original landowners under Section 48 of the Act, 1894 vide order dated 13.03.2012. The respondents herein-original landowners again preferred the present Writ Petition No. 41 of 2012 before the High Court.

3.3 During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Act, 2013 came into force. At the time of hearing of the present writ petition before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the original landowners-original writ petitioners that as no award has been made under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, therefore, the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 would be attracted and the original landowners shall be entitled to the compensation determined under the provisions of Act, 2013.

3.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has observed and held that the respondents herein-original writ petitioners-original landowners would be entitled to compensation in terms of provi