IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
M/s. Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.33180 of 2016 (LA-RES)
Decided on : 29-08-2023
Land Acquisition - Quashing of Award - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 4(1), Section 6, Section 17(1), Section 24, Section 26 - The court discussed the determination of market value of land under the 2013 Act, the applicability of guidelines under Section 26, and the reliance on Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and issuance of a writ of mandamus to draw up an Award in terms of the 2013 Act. The validity of the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was challenged, and the 2013 Act came into force during the pendency of the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the determination of market value under the 2013 Act and held that the market value of the land is to be determined as on the date of the Section 4(1) Notification of 1894 Act. It also found that the Land Acquisition Officer could not rely on the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value.
Issues: The issues considered were: (a) Determination of market value under the 2013 Act, and (b) Reliance on Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the market value of the land is to be determined as on the date of the Section 4(1) Notification of 1894 Act and that the Land Acquisition Officer could not rely on the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value.
Final Decision: The Award was quashed, and the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass a fresh Award while re-working the compensation in light of the court's discussion and to strictly adhere to the Guidelines under Section 26 and other applicable Rules made under the 2013 Act.
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the Award at Annexure-'X' dated 20.01.2016 passed by respondent No.4 -Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore District. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to draw up an Award in terms of Section 26 of 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' ('hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act').
2. The Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act') was issued on 15.03.2008 notifying the land of the petitioner. The Final Notification under Section 6 and 17(1) of 1894 Act came to be passed on 05.06.2009. The validity of the notification came to be challenged in W.P.No.405/2010, which was disposed off remitting the matter for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of 1894 Act.
3. After rejecting the objections, the Notification was published under Section 6(1) of 1894 Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Notification in W.P.No.10322/2013 and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, 2013 Act came into force and the petition was disposed off as follows:-
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed an Award, the copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-'X' and the market value is fixed on the basis of the sale consideration of Sale Deed dated 21.04.2007 for Rs.78,00,000/-and following the norms fixed in the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013.
5. The said Award has been assailed by the petitioner contending that the Guidelines mandated under Section 26 of 2013 Act have not been followed, that the reliance on the Notification dated 04.07.2013, which was passed prior to commencement of 2013 Act is bad in law, that the value as the base price for calculation of compensation under Section 26 of 2013 Act would be the value as on 01.01.2014, that the Apex Court in the case of Hori Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 129 [Hori Lal] has taken the market value as on 01.01.2014.
6. The respondents on the other hand have contended that the value for the purpose of Section 26 of 2013 Act ought to be the value as on the date of the Section 4(1) notification under 1894 Act, that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly followed the Guideline under the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The points for consideration are as follows:-
(b) Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer could have relied on the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value?
9. At the outset, this Writ Petition is entertained as the contention advanced is that the Land Acquisition Officer has not adhered to the direction passed in W.P.No.10322/2013, which mandates passing of Award under 2013 Act. Even otherwise, there is no serious opposition to the entertaining of the Writ Petition, directly.
(a) Where Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is passed but Award is passed only after coming into force of 2013 Act, the market value of the land is to be determined as on the date of Section 4(1) Notification of 1894 Act or on 01.01.2014 when 2013 Act has come into force?
10. The Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act was passed on 15.03.2008, and the Base Value adopted was the consideration recorded in a Sale Deed of 21.04.2007.
11. It must be noted that in te
The main legal point established is that the determination of market value under the 2013 Act is to be based on the date of the Section 4(1) Notification of 1894 Act, and the Land Acquisition Officer....
Compensation for land acquired under the old Act must be determined using the provisions of the new Act if the award was not made before the new Act's commencement.
The court held that the Acquiring Authority did not meet the conditions for lapsing provisions under the Act of 2013, allowing the petitions for land compensation.
Point of Law : 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.