IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition under the Adhiniyam does not lapse due to delay in award; provisions of the New Act, 2013 apply for compensation determination.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Harshit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 5 and Shri Naman Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the notifications dated 12.06.2004 and 24.06.2010 issued under Section 28 and Section 32 respectively of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed being barred on account of delay in concluding the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession and for a further direction to approve the building plan submitted by the petitioner for raising constructions over the said land and to decide the representation dated 25.05.2024 made in this behalf.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the award having not been declared so far, the acquisition proceedings should be declared to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the New Act 2013’).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad submits that in the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short ‘the Adhiniyam’) under which acquisition in question has been made, there is no provision for automatic lapsing on ground of delay in making award. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another, (1998) 2 SCC 467 in contending that amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘LA Act’) by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, by which Section 11-A was introduced, was held to be inapplicable to acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam. Therefore, Section 11-A of LA Act would not apply and on the same analogy, Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 would also not apply. He also places reliance on a judgment of this Court in Hem Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2024 (7) ADJ 254 (DB) wherein it was held that the acquisitions under the Adhiniyam would not lapse but the award shall have to be made by treating the reference date for determining the compensation as 01.01.2014, the date of enforcement of the New Act, 2013 and not the date of notification under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam.

5. The main issue which arises for consideration is whether the acquisition in question initiated under the Adhiniyam would lapse on account of award having not been declared so far.

6. Section 55 of the Adhiniyam makes applicable certain provisions of the LA Act, 1894, as amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. For ready reference, Section 55 of the Adhiniyam is extracted below:

“55. Power to acquire land:

(1) Any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, which for this purpose shall be subject to the modification specified in the Schedule to this Act.

(2) If any land in respect of which betterment fee has been levied under this Act is subsequently required for any of the purposes of this Act, such levy shall not be deemed to prevent the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894).”

7. By Act No. 68 of 1984, drastic amendments were made in the LA Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons - emphasizes the need to balance individual interest with larger interest of the community. Two main features of the Amending Act, 1984 was to provide (i) timelines in initiating and concluding various stages of the proceedings so as to avoid delay of long periods which ‘renders unre