The date for determining compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is 01.01.2014, the date of commencement of the Act, and not the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant-State has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 11.7.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed.

2. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. In-fact, the compensation amount was liable to be determined on the date the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894') had been issued, i.e., on 13.1.2003. Possession of the land in question was taken in the year 2004 after issuance of Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and 80% of the amount of compensation had already been disbursed to the claimants. As per Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013'), where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then all provisions of this Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Section 113 (2) of the Act of 2013, every order made under the said provision was liable to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the question involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the compensation was liable to be determined in terms of the Act of 2013 and the market value of the land was to be taken as it existed on 1.1.2014. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Allahabad High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, placed on record with the reply filed by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that so far as Section 113(2) of the Act of 2013 is concerned, the same was merely directory and not mandatory. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana, (1979) 2 SCC 196, wherein it was held as under:-

"32. From the foregoing discussion, it inevitably follows that the Legislature never intended that non-compliance with the requirement of laying as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Act should render the order void. Consequently non-laying of the aforesaid notification fixing the maximum selling prices of various categories of iron and steel including the commodity in question before both Houses of Parliament cannot result in nullification of the notification. Accordingly, we answer the aforesaid question in the negative. In view of this answer, it is not necessary to deal with the other contention raised by the respondent to the effect that the aforesaid notification being of a subsidiary character, it was not necessary to lay it before both Houses of Parliament to make it valid."

5. Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Notification for acquisition of land in question under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 13.1.2003. Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 5.10.2004. Possession of the land was taken from the respondents in the year 2004. 80% of the amount of compensation was paid to the respondents on 29.11.2005. However, when the respondents filed the writ petition and till the decision of the writ petition, no award was passed by the Collector. Admittedly, the award has been passed by the Collector on 1.2.2018.

6. The question that requires consideration in the present case is that when no award has been passed on the date of coming in force of the Act of 2013, then what would be the date for determining the amount of compensation. The question involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra. The same question came up for consideration before Allahabad High Court in case titled Krishna Autar & 5 Ors