IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 24(1)(a) of the LARR Act, 2013, which mandates the determination of compensation under the provisions of the LARR Act, 2013 if no award has been made under the L.A. Act, 1894.

Heard Mr. S. K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and D.M. (LR) Department for respondent No.1, Ms. U. Das, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned letter dated 06.02.2014, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & D.M. (LR) Department, whereby an award amounting to Rs.5,95,41,736/- (Rupees five crore ninety five lakh forty one thousand seven hundred and thirty six) only has been approved in connection with acquisition of land for construction of “Plastic Park” in Village Gillapukhuri Tea Estate in respect of L.A. Case No.1/2008/Pt.I. The challenge is also made to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the L.A. Act, 1894’), after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the LARR Act, 2013’), which had come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, on the ground that apart from not affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, same violates the provision of Section 24 of the LARR Act, 2013.

3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It owns a Tea Estate and is situated over an area of land measuring more than 4380 Bighas at Tinsukia. The State Government decided to acquire a portion of the above Tea Estate land for the purpose of establishing a “Plastic Park” vide dated 04.08.2008 and 28.01.2010 in exercise of power under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894, for 1166 bighas, 1 katha, 14 lechas of the land of Gillapukhuri Tea Estate, owned by the petitioner. Accordingly, a proceeding being L.A. Case No.1/2008 was also initiated. Thereafter, vide dated 17.06.2009, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 was published. In the same manner, the Government proposed to acquire petitioner’s additional plot of land measuring 333 bighas, 3 kathas, 6 lechas in Village Gillapukhuri NLR Grant No.261 covered by Dag No.8 (part), 9 (Part), 10, 11, 14 (part) and 24 (part), Mouza – Rongagora in District Tinsukia, for the purpose of construction of “Plastic Park” and accordingly a proceeding being L.A. Case No.1/2008/Pt.-I was also initiated. In order to give effect to said proposal, a Notification dated 28.01.2010 was also issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894.

4. It is contended that violating the mandate of Section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894, neither the copy of the said Notification was supplied to the petitioner nor was public notice of the substance of the said Notification given at a convenient place in the Gillapukhuri locality. It is contended that the petitioner having learned the issuance of the aforesaid Notification vide letter dated 21.05.2010, lodged its protest basically on the ground of selection of its prime tea bearing land. Thereafter, another representation dated 10.06.2010 was submitted to the authority offering another equivalent portion of land which was adjacent to the earlier acquired land measuring 1166 bighas, 1 katha, 14 lechas and prayed for consideration of the same regarding the selection of area.

5. It is contended that thereafter, in continuation of the aforesaid Notification dated 28-01-2010, a Declaration bearing No. RLA.25/2010/5 dated 22-09-2010 was also issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894. Neither any copy of the Declaration was supplied to the petitioner nor was the public notice of the substance of such notification affixed/circulated at convenient places in the Gillapukri Tea Estate Locality in violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 6(2) of the L. A. Act, 1894. Even the provision contained under Section 5A of the L. A. Act, 1894 were not followed before issuance of Declaration and