IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the New Act if no valid award existed under the Old Act at the time of the New Act's enactment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Barpujari, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department and Mr. RK Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the NHIDCL.

2. The petitioners' tea-growing land under Ledo Tea Estate in Makum Mouza of Tinsukia district was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Old Act) for the construction of a bypass on National Highway 38. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceeding being LA case No. 47/2009 was initiated. Certain compensations were also paid, which was accepted by the petitioner under protest as well as possession was also handed over to the acquiring authority under protest.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that given the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act), which became operational on 01.01.2014, the petitioner is entitled for land acquisition compensation in terms of the New Act. However, as their prayer was rejected, the present writ petition was filed.

4. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner argues the following:

I.In term of Subsection 1 of Section 11 of the Old Act, until and unless approval is granted by the State Government, it cannot be an award in the eye of law and admittedly, in the case in hand the award was approved on 29.01.2014 and therefore on the date of coming into effect of the New Act, i.e. on 01.01.2014, there was no award and therefore, in terms of the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the petitioner is entitled for compensation in terms of the New Act.

II. Though compensation was accepted on 24.03.2014, it was under protest and subsequent to the determination made in the Indore Development Authority (supra) and therefore, paragraph 363 of the aforesaid judgment thereof cannot be made applicable in this case.

III. The handing over and taking over possession was also done on 04.06.2014 and such handing over and taking over possession shall also have no relevance so far the same relates to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid paragraph by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Indore Development Authority (supra).

IV. The notice under Section 12 (2) of the Old Act was issued on 07.03.2014 i.e. after coming into effect of the New Act.

5. Per contra, Mr. Barpujari, learned counsel representing the Collector argues :

I. As both the notices under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Old Act were issued before coming into effect of the New Act, therefore, the land acquisition proceeding shall neither lapse nor the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation under the new Act in terms of the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) in the given fact of the present case inasmuch as compensations were paid under the Old Act and the possession was also taken over before enactment of the New Act.

II. By virtue of the mandate of Section 6 of the Old Act, after issuance of the notice, the acquired property shall vest upon the State and accordingly, the State had taken over possession of the land in question on 23.12.2013. In support of his contention, Mr. Barpujari also places heavy reliance on the determination made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 363 in Indore Development Authority (supra). In support of his contention, he refers to Annexure C of the additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 3.

6. Mr. RK Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of NHIDCL argues that the land in question was initially acquired by the State for Assam Public Works Department (National Highway) and therefore, NHIDCL was nowhere involved during the land acquisition process. Subsequently, the construction of the road was handed over to NHIDCL with free land and therefore, they should not be fastened with the liability, even i