Failure to pass an award within 12 months post-enactment of the new land acquisition legislation results in lapse of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the old legislation.

Order :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. As the question for determination in above writ petitions is one and the same, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

2. Facts of case, in brief, are that respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Aarang / Abhanpur issued nwotification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1894’), which was published in daily newspaper on 29.3.2013. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published. During pendency of land acquisition proceeding, new act namely “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’) came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. After following procedure as prescribed under the Act of 2013, award under Section 23 of the Act of 2013 came to be passed on 18.9.2015, Annexure P-1, by respondent No.3 computing compensation to be paid against acquisition of land of respective petitioners along with others under the land acquisition proceeding.

3. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions primarily on the ground that after notification and coming force of the Act of 2013 on 1.1.2014, even if the land acquisition proceeding initiated under the old Act i.e. the Act of 1894, continued, it has to be completed within period of 12 months from the date of publication of declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013. Award was not passed within twelve months, hence proceeding lapsed after twelve months. The award passed is therefore no award. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the Collector has not conducted inquiry as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act of 2013. Had the inquiry was conducted by the Collector, petitioners could have an opportunity to raise objection in accordance with law. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioners that compensation as computed by Land Acquisition Officer is not in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013, which provides for determination of market value of land by the Collector as envisaged under Section 26 of the Act of 2013. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioners that for the purpose of these writ petitions, he is pressing upon the ground that due to non-passing of the award within prescribed period of 12 months the entire land acquisition proceeding initiated has lapsed. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon decision rendered in case of State of West Bengal vs. Anup Kumar Mondal & anr, reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal 4149; Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Mahesh and others , reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772 ; Vitthal Rama Pawar (Katkari) and others vs. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 149 and order of Division Bench of this Court dated 25.7.2024 in WA No.30/2019 (NRDA vs Gaukaran & others).

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3- State while opposing submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, submits that award was passed in accordance with provisions under the Act of 2013, computation of compensation is based on market value as provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013. As there was no recent sale deeds, guidelines issued by the Collector was taken into consideration and taking note of provisions of Sections 26 (1) & 30 of the Act of 2013, the compensation was comp