The court emphasized compliance with the New Land Acquisition Act for assessing compensation, declaring that failure to apply new statutory provisions renders the award legally flawed.

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Both the petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks quashing and setting aside of award dated 07.11.2016 passed by respondent No. 3 and further directions to respondent No. 3 to pass fresh award in respect of acquired land of the petitioners. Taking into consideration the relevant rate of determination of market value as 01.01.2014, the petitioners also prays for direction to respondent No. 3 to apply multiplier factor of 2 instead of 1.50. While calculating the compensation for the petitioners acquired land under the Right to Fare Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

4. The facts involved in both the petitions are that, petitioners’ land has been acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of Storage Dam and bypass road at village Uppalkheda which a public purpose. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, according to petitioners, have not considered the compensation amount for irrigated agricultural land and have also not considered that the land had fruit bearing trees such as Mango and Nut tree with other fruit trees while passing the final award. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in terms of Section 24(1) of New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short “New Act, 2013”) who have considered the relevant date for determination of compensation of the acquired land of the petitioners as on 01.04.2014 which is the date of commencement of New Act, 2013. The petitioners also states that respondents who have applied appropriate multiplier along with the value of the assets attached to the land or building including the pipeline which was situated in the land belong to the petitioners while calculating the final award. Respondent No. 4 has taken possession of the land of the petitioners on 10.04.2008 and award has been passed on 07.11.2016 by respondent No. 3 in respect of the said acquisition.

5. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3 had issued a notification under Section 4(1) of Old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Old Act, 1894”) on 02.06.2011 and even though the award came to be passed in the year, 2016. The said award is being passed under the Old Act, 1894. According to the petitioners, after the new enactment of Land Acquisition Act came into force on 01.01.2014, then the award should have been passed by the authority under the New Act, 2013 and not under the Old Act, 1894. The petitioners also raises grievance about the applicability of multiplier of 1.5 while calculating the compensation amount during the final award by the authorities. According to the petitioners, as per Government Resolution dated 26.05.2015, multiplier factor of 2 is applicable to the petitioners’ land as the land is situated in a rural area almost 160 KMs away from Aurangabad city. As per the directions given by the Central Government by notification dated 26.10.2015, the calculation of the market value under Section 24(1) of the New Act, 2013 is held to be 01.01.2024. Hence, compensation should have been calculated in accordance with the said notification.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the award passed by respondent No. 3 on 07.11.2016 stands vitiated for the reason that it has been passed as per the Old Act, 1894 and not as per the New Act,2013. According to his argument, the relevant date for determination of value for acquired land should be the date on which the notification under Section 11 was issued. In absence of any contingency, date of enforcement of the N