IMPORTANT POINT
The award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is void if passed after the enactment of the 2013 Act, and the right to just compensation under Article 300A cannot be waived.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

Efficacy of an award passed under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act 1894 after the promulgation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act 30 of 2013) has arisen for consideration in this appeal preferred by the claimant. Though the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, the Subordinate Judges court, Thalassery by judgment and decree dated 15.06.2020 upheld the award passed by the Collector, granted enhancement to the claimant and answered the reference in L.A.R. No.1 of 2016.

Aggrieved by the same the claimant is before us in appeal.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: An extent of 0.1850 hectares of land comprised in Re-survey No.50/2 (New Survey No.50/7) of the Eruvatty village of Thalassery taluk was acquired for the purpose of establishing SV/IP Station of Gas Authority of India Limited. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,27,605/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Five only). Dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act.

3. Before delving further into the issues presented before us in the present appeal, we need to notice certain indisputable facts. The date of Section 4(1) notification was on 14.12.2012. The award was passed on 15.03.2014 fixing the land value at Rs.13,734/- per cent. The erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act 30 of 2013) on 1.1.2014. Pursuant to the award dated 15.3.2014, the land was taken possession on 11.4.2014. The reference court answered the reference on 15.6.2020. While answering the reference, the reference court noticed that though the claimant contended that since the award was passed after the enactment of the new Act, he was entitled to get compensation as per the scheme under Act 30 of 2013, subsequently, after the argument was concluded, he had agreed to the award be passed as per Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . Therefore, the reference court concluded that in view of the endorsement ‘waving his right under the new Act’, the court can proceed under the earlier Act, and, accordingly rendered its findings.

4. Certain intricate questions have presented itself before us for consideration. For the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate to broadly frame the following questions which arise for consideration.

a. Whether the award dated 15.3.2014 has any efficacy of law in view of the promulgation of Act 30 of 2013.

b. Whether the claimant can waive his right to claim compensation under the New Act.

c. Whether the Sub Court, Thalassery, had jurisdiction to answer the reference.

5. We have heard Sri. Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. T.K. Shajahan, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. Latha Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the requisitioning authority, and Sri. P.B Krishnan, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Chithra, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court to assist the Court on the intricate questions of law.

6. The efficacy of the award dated 15.3.2014.

6.1. In the present case, Section 4(1) notification was issued on 14.12.2012. Under the earlier regime of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , before passing an award, it is imperative to issue a declaration under Section 6 . Section 6 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act reads as under:

6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose. –

(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the [appropriate Government] [or the Board of Revenue] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub- section (2)], that