The Reference Court in land acquisition matters lacks the authority to set aside a Collector's award and remand for fresh determination, functioning instead to affirm or enhance the award according to established law.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the State under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Basti in Land Acquisition Case No.1 of 2021 (Iftekhar Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the reference and has set aside the award of the Collector dated 13.11.2019 and remanded the matter to the Collector for determining the compensation in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that in the instant case, land for construction of the Maina Rajwaha in village Tenua Grunt, Pargana Bansi West, Tehsil Itwa, District Siddharth Nagar was acquired through notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 27.01.2010, declaration under Section 6 was made on 09.08.2010 and the possession of the land was taken under urgency clause under Section 17 of the above Act on 28.09.2010 and the award of the Collector was made on 13.11.2019, whereby compensation of Rs.1,14,39,264/- was awarded to the claimants on the basis of exemplar on record.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the award of the Collector was challenged by the land owners for enhancement of compensation by filing reference, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by the Reference Court on the ground that the Collector should have determined compensation under the Act of 2013, which came into effect from 01.01.2014. On this ground, the award of the Collector dated 13.11.2019 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Collector for determination of compensation afresh in accordance with the observations made by the Reference Court.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in no circumstances, the Reference Court could have set aside the award of the Collector and remanded the matter to the Collector for determining the compensation afresh. It was further submitted that either the Collector could have affirmed the award or enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners, but in no circumstances the award of the Collector could have been set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No.670 of 1992 ( State of UP and others vs. Rahmullah ) decided on 23.07.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent also very fairly accepts that the Reference Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the award of the Collector and remanding the matter to him for determining the compensation afresh. Learned counsel further submitted that the Reference Court should have itself determined the compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 2013, if it was applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. I have heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anirudh Singh holding brief of Sri Indrakesh Kumar Sharma and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal. Appeal is admitted.

7. From the above facts, it is evident that the Reference Court has set aside the award of the Collector dated 13.11.2019 on the ground that the Collector has determined the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas the compensation should have been determined under the Act of 2013, which came into effect from 01.01.2014 a