IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the New Act, 2013, governs compensation for land acquisitions under the Adhiniyam when the award is not finalized before the New Act's enforcement, ensuring compliance with constitutional principles of equality and fairness in compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kant Mishra, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the award dated 27.02.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Agra in respect of Khasra Nos. 109/1, area 0.2910 hectare, 109/2, area 0.6450 hectare, 70M, area 0.0890 hectare, 72, area 0.2150 hectare, 74, area 0.1900 hectare, 67, area 0.1900 hectare, 68, area 0.0510 hectare, 69, area 0.4170 hectare, 70M, area 0.5560 hectare, 71, area 0.3920 hectare situated at Village Bhood, Tehsil and District Bulandshahr and for a further direction to the said authority to prepare a fresh award treating 'relevant date' with reference to which market value is to be determined as 01.01.2014, i.e. the date of enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the New Act, 2013’).

3. The petitioner, indisputably, was bhumidhar with transferable rights of the aforesaid plots. A notification under Section 28 of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parish Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') was issued on 11.08.1979. It was followed by notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam dated 07.07.1982. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6695 of 1983 for putting a restraint on the respondents from enforcing Grihstha Yojana No.1 Scheme in pursuance of the aforesaid notifications and to declare Sections 55(1) and 32(2) of the Adhiniyam as ultra vires of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 15.03.2000 and, thereafter, the restoration application was also dismissed on 19.07.2002. Possession of the land was taken by the Parishad on 28.06.2002, however, award of the subject land was not made until 27.02.2024.

4. In the impugned award dated 27.02.2024, the reference date for calculating compensation for the acquired land has been taken to be the date of notification under Section 28 dated 11.08.1979 treating it to be at par with notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act'). Accordingly, the exemplar sale deeds of the period three months prior to notification under Section 28 dated 11.08.1979 alone have been considered in determining compensation for the subject land. Market value of the acquired land has been determined by applying the principle of betting system. For the land situated upto a distance of 100 feet from the road, compensation determined is at the rate of Rs.31.42 per sqr. yard, for the land upto 600 feet at the rate of Rs.21.05 per sqr yard and beyond it, at the rate of Rs.15.71 per sqr yard, apart from other statutory benefits.

5. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after coming into force of New Act of 2013, the compensation has to be determined with reference to the date of enforcement of the said Act, i.e. 01.01.2014. In support of his contention, he places reliance on Section 24(1) of the New Act, 2013 and the recent judgment of Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Chandra Shekhar and others, (2024) 3 SCR 585, (Civil Appeal No.3855 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No.779 of 2016, decided on 05.03.2024).

6. On the other hand, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Parishad, submits that by virtue of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies, subject to modifications specified in the Schedule. There has been no amendment in the said provision so as to make applicable the provisions of the New Act, 2013, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Atul Sharma and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and oth