The acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed as the award was not passed within the one-year period mandated by the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

R.Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. The land of the appellant to an extent of Ac.1.10 cents in Sy. No.208/2, 208/3 and 208/5p of Davuluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired under the provisions of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 [for short ‘the Act, 1894’]. A necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 20.06.2013. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was given on 02.01.2014 and an award fixing compensation was passed on 29.12.2015.

2. This acquisition process was challenged by the appellant by way of W.P. No.10516 of 2017 before this Court. The contention of the appellant was that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short ‘the Act, 2013] had come into force on 01.01.2014. Section 25 of the Act, 2013 mandated that an award should be passed within twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 of the Act, 2013. Failing which, the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. However, the first proviso granted power to the Government to extend the said period of twelve months if circumstances justifying the same exist. The appellant contends that the aforesaid period of twelve months expired on 02.01.2015 and no orders of the Government extending time had been passed. Hence, the passing of the award on 29.12.2015 is beyond the said period and consequently, the acquisition proceedings should lapse.

3. A learned single judge of this Court, after considering this contention, dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 24.03.2017. The learned single judge took the view that Section 24 of the Act, 2013, which brought into application the remaining provisions of the Act, 2013, had only stipulated that the new Act would govern the manner of fixation of compensation and consequently, the time frame set out under Section 25 of the Act would not be applicable to the present case and the provisions of Section 11A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1984 would be applicable. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. We have heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, 2013 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Mahesh and others, (2022) 2 SCC 772 .

6. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has contended that Section 11A of the Act, 1894 granted a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6 for passing of an award. However, this period has been reduced to one year under Section 25 of the Act, 2013.

7. The issue before this Court is whether the reduced period of time would be applicable to the present case or not. It would be necessary to note Sections 24 and Section 25 of the Act, 2013.

24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 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 (1 of 1894), -

(a) where no award under Section 11 of t