Land Acquisition--Notification for multiplication factor not issued under 2013 Act--Mere instructions cannot be considered as compliance to the statutory requirement--Award set aside.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging vires of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act'), instructions dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P-8) issued by Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disabler Management Department (Land Revenue Branch), Government of Punjab; notifications dated 13.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) and 21.6.2012 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'), respectively, and the award dated 29.5.2015 (Annexure P-5) announced by Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State sought to acquire the land owned by the petitioner, while issuing notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 13.7.2011. The purpose of acquisition was construction of Toll Plaza for project of 4-Lanning of road along Sidhwan Canal from Doraha to Ludhiana. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, however, without affording opportunity of hearing, the objections were rejected and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.6.2012. Earlier, the petitioner filed CWP No. 18188 of 2012 impugning the aforesaid notifications, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.10.2012. Before the award was announced by the Collector under the 1894 Act, the 2013 Act came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. The 1894 Act was repealed. The award was announced by the Collector under the repealed Act on 4.4.2014. The market value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 1.5 lacs per marla. As the Collector had passed the award under the repealed Act, the petitioner filed CWP No. 13076 of 2014, which was disposed of by this court on 27.2.2015 on the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents therein that the award will be amended in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act and the process shall be concluded by 31.5.2015. Thereafter, the Collector passed the award on 29.5.2015 determining the value @ Rs. 40,262/- per marla.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Section 11A of the 1894 Act, award could be announced within a period of two years from the date of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act, which was issued on 21.6.2012. The award could be announced upto 20.6.2014, hence, the award now passed is beyond the period prescribed under the 1894 Act. He further submitted that in terms of Section 25 of the 2013 Act, award in which proceedings had been initiated under the 1894 Act could be passed within one year from 1.1.2014, i.e., the date when the 2013 Act came into force. That period of limitation expired on 1.1.2015. Even in terms thereof, the award dated 29.5.2015 is beyond the period of limitation. He further submitted that in terms of Section 26 of the 2013 Act, the market value of the land is to be determined on certain specified principles. Multiplication factor is to be applied in terms of Section 26(2) read with First Schedule to the 2013 Act. The appropriate Government in the present case has not notified any multiplication factor. Merely instructions have been issued on 16.10.2014, which do not comply with the provisions of the 2013 Act. Even in those instructions, multiplication factor has been restricted to 1.25 which is contrary to the spirit of the 2013 Act, which provides the range from 1 to 2. It is the admitted case of the State that no notification has been issued. In case the Act provides for doing any act in a particular manner, all other forms are barred.

4. Reference was also made to para 13 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2013 Act. By specifying the multiplication factor by issuing instructions, the State in a way has amended the Schedule for which no power is vested i