Back
2017 Supreme(All) 168
In The High Court of Allahabad
Dilip Gupta & Siddhartha Varma, JJ.
Hori Lal - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 44731 of 2016 with WRIT -C Nos. -44733 of 2016, 49970 of 2016, 49979 of 2016, 55577 of 2016, 55580 of 2016, 58201 of 2016, 58390 of 2016, 58401 of 2016, 58844 of 2016, 58853 of 2016, 58869 of 2016, 59172 of 2016, 59188 of 2016, 59211 of 2016, 59213 of 2016, 60680 of 2016, 7119 of 2017, 7120 of 2017, 7365 of 2017, 7367 of 2017, 7369 of 2017, 7803 of 2017, 7806 of 2017, 7810 of 2017, 7814 of 2017, 7865 of 2017, 10403 of 2017
Decided On : 09-03-2017
For the Petitioner: Kripa Shankar Shukla, Krishna Nand Rai.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra, Usha Mehrotra.
The date for determination of market value for compensation under the 2013 Act should be the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Varanasi-Bypass - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 24 of the 2013 Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed to quash a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of land for Varanasi-Bypass. The petitioners sought compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act, arguing that the market value of the land should be determined based on the date of the award of the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the 2013 Act had been applied for determining the compensation. It rejected the argument that the market value of the land should be based on the date of the award, stating that the date for determination of market value should be the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the market value of the land for compensation under the 2013 Act, specifically whether it should be based on the date of the award or the date of the preliminary notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the date for determination of market value should be the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act. It also highlighted the remedy provided under Section 64 of the 2013 Act for aggrieved parties to challenge the determination of compensation.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court directed the petitioners to take recourse to the provisions of the 2013 Act if aggrieved by the determination of compensation.
1. These petitions have been filed for quashing the notification dated 30 October 2002 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the 1894 Act by which land measuring 74.2771/2 hectares in 22 villages in District Varanasi was acquired for construction of Varanasi-Bypass (Ring Road) through the National Highway Division No.-1 of the Public Works Department in Varanasi. In some of the writ petitions, prayer has also been made for payment of compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the 2013 Act by treating the date of the award of the Collector as the date on which the market value of the land should be determined.
2. It transpires from the records of the writ petitions that after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was made on 29 November 2003 and awards were made in 2015 and 2016. The respondents have determined the market value of the land treating 1 January 2014 (the date on which the 2013 Act came into force) as the date on which the market value of the land should be determined.
3. During the course of hearing of the writ petitions, Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri K.S. Shukla, however, stated that the petitioners in larger public interest are not challenging the acquisition proceedings but are only interested in payment of compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act but the date of the award of the Collector should be treated as the date on which the market value of the land should be determined. To support his contention for enhancement of the compensation, learned Senior Counsel has placed before the Court the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act as also the award dated 3 April 2015 enclosed with the supplementary affidavit that was made for land that was acquired in Pargana-Shivpur, Tehsil Sadar-Varanasi in District Varanasi by the National Highways Authority of India, the Authority for widening of the road.
4. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Authority assisted by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent have, however, submitted that the awards have been made by applying the principles provided for in the 2013 Act and the date for determination of the market value of the land has to be taken as 1 January 2014 on which date the 2013 Act came into force. This has been done in view of the opinion of the Central Government contained in the Circular dated 26 October 2015 which was given under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. This Circular provides that if the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued and no award had been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, then the reference date for calculation of the market value under the 2013 Act should be 1 January 2014.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the parties.
6. It is no doubt true that the proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated under the provisions of the 1894 Act since the notification under Section 4(1) was made under the 1894 Act. Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act provides that in case proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the 1894 Act and the award has not been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, then all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of the compensation shall apply. It is also not in dispute that the awards that have been made in 2015 and 2016 have applied the provisions of the 2013 Act for determination of the compensation. What has, however, been submitted by Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the date for determination of the market value should be the date of the award and not 1 January 2014.
7. This submission is not based on any p
