By the Court.—A notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) was issued on 2 December 2004 for acquisition of a large tract of land measuring 229.5390 acres situated in village Mahiuddinpur Kanawani, Pargana Loni, Tehsil Dadri in District Gautam Budh Nagar including land measuring 5.1129 acres belonging to the petitioner. This was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 28 November 2005. The petitioner filed Writ-C No. 77751 of 2005 to challenge the acquisition. Initially an interim order was passed on 22 December 2005 staying dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question but the petition was ultimately disposed of on 7 December 2007 with a direction to the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad (Development Authority) to implement its Board’s Resolution dated 20 February 2003 for release of the land belonging to the petitioner within a period of one month. The Development Authority preferred Special Leave Petition No. 18828 of 2008 in which an order was passed on 17 April 2009 granting leave and also staying the impugned order of the High Court. On 15 December 2014 possession of 5.1129 acres of land belonging to the petitioner was taken and handed over to the acquiring body. The award was thereafter made on 8 May 2015 under Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), which came into force on 1 January 2014. It is this award that has been impugned in the present petition with a further relief that compensation should be paid to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.

2. The sole contention of Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma is that the date for determination of the market value of the land under Section 26 of the 2013 Act should be 1 January 2014, on which date the 2013 Act came into force, in view of the directions contained in the Circular dated 26 August 2015 of the Central Government under Section 113 of the 2013 Act and not the date of publication of the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. The submission, therefore, is that the award should be modified to that extent instead of quashing it. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon three Division Bench judgments of this Court in Writ-C No. 1580 of 2016 (Prahlad Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 26 September 2016), Writ-C No. 44731 of 2016 (Hori Lal v. State of U.P. and others decided on 9 March 2017) and Writ-C No. 40 of 2017 (Deepak Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others decided on 28 March 2017).

3. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Development Authority assisted by Sri Mahendra Pratap and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents have, however, contended that the date for determination of the market value of the land should be the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued and not 1 January 2014. For this, reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the provisions of Sections 11, 23 and 26 of the 2013 Act. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the directions issued by the Central Government were never placed before each House of Parliament as is contemplated under Section 113(2) of the 2013 Act and, therefore, cannot be relied upon.

4. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

5. The date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act is 2 December 2004 and the date on which the declaration was made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act is 28 November 2005. The petitioner had challenged the acquisition proceedings in Writ-C No. 77751 of 2005 and an interim order was passed on 22 December 2005 that the petitioner shall not be dispos