Point of Law : State has not been diligent in pursuing its case where identical issues were involved before this Court.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.

1. Review of the order dated May 9, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been sought by filing the present applications.

2. Before we notice the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to notice certain dates, which are not in dispute.

RELEVANT DATES PERTAINING TO REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE STATE

RELEVANT DATES PERTAINING TO REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY THE GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

3. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants, submitted that the legal issue involved in the present case is as to the date on which the amount of compensation payable to the land owners has to be assessed. It is with reference to Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’).

4. In the case in hand, the process of acquisition started before the enactment of the 2013 Act, however, the award was announced on May 8, 2015 i.e. after the 2013 Act came into force. The date for assessment of compensation was taken as the date on which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) was issued. In the order under review, the Division Bench of this Court, while relying upon a communication from the Government of India dated October 26, 2015, had directed that the market value of the land has to be determined as on January 1, 2014. Even in the cases where the acquisition proceedings started when the 1894 Act was in force, the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, is the crucial date for assessment of compensation. The aforesaid communication from Government of India was relied upon, without the same being placed on record by the writ petitioners. The same was considered to be a direction issued by the Government of India under Section 113 of the 2013 Act. However, Section 113(2) of the 2013 Act provides that any order issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act has to be laid before the Parliament. It was not done. Hence, the same could not be relied upon by the Court. When the confusion arose with reference to the aforesaid communication of Government of India, clarification was issued by the Government of India on September 26, 2018 that the earlier communication dated October 26, 2015 was not issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act.

5. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate, while referring to Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, submitted that it does not talk about the date on which the compensation is to be assessed. Section 26 of the 2013 Act deals with determination of market value of the land. Proviso to Section 26 of the 2013 Act provides that crucial date for determination of compensation is the date on which the notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act is issued. The same is similar to Section 4 of the 1894 Act. As the provisions of the 2013 Act are quite clear, there was no ambiguity, which required clarification.

6. As legal issues are involved, which need