1. Legal question whether the Authority under the Act of 2013 can execute its own award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1583
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Lucknow Development Authority through Secretary Lucknow - Petitioner
Versus
Ramrati – Respondent
Matter Under Article 227 No. - 143 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2326 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2282 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 1064 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 1068 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 1069 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 1070 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2242 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2286 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2287 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2288 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2301 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2302 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2304 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2306 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2307 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2308 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2309 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2310 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2311 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2312 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2313 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2314 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2315 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2317 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2318 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2319 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2320 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2321 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2325 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2327 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2328 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2329 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2330 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2331 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2348 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2349 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2350 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2354 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2381 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 2399 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 3648 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 3654 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 3657 of 2026, Matters Under Article 227 No. 7312 of 2025,
Decided On : 28-09-2026
Important Points
The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority lacks the jurisdiction to execute its own awards under the 2013 Act as no specific power is conferred. Awards deemed as decrees under Section 70(2) must be executed by a competent Civil Court.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Execution of Awards
Act Referred
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT: S.15, S.51, S.53, S.60, S.64, S.74
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.227
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: S.24
UTTAR PRADESH STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT: S.68(a)(4)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.11(10)
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT: S.21, S.22(e)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.345, S.346
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.183, S.228
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.227
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: S.24
UTTAR PRADESH STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT: S.68(a)(4)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.11(10)
LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT: S.21, S.22(e)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.345, S.346
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.183, S.228
LIMITATION ACT: S.5
Headnote
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 51, 60, 63, 64, 70, 103 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI - Power of Authority to execute its own award - Whether an award deemed to be a decree under Section 70(2) allows the Authority to execute the same - Power of execution is a substantive power that must be expressly conferred by the legislature - Section 60(1) of the Act incorporates limited powers of a civil court; the absence of specific execution powers cannot be filled by inherent power or a liberal interpretation of Section 60(3) (Paras 152-186).
(B) Referential Legislation - Distinction between legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation - Section 60(1) of the Act of 2013 is an example of legislation by incorporation, meaning only the specifically borrowed provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, and power of execution cannot be inferred from the general existence of the Code (Paras 161-168).
(C) Inherent Powers - A statutory quasi-judicial authority does not possess inherent powers unless specifically conferred by the statute under which it is constituted (Paras 173-182).
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired for public purposes and subsequently referred for enhancement of compensation. The Authority enhanced the awards and initiated execution proceedings, including coercive measures against the requiring bodies. The requiring bodies challenged the jurisdiction of the Authority to act as an executing court.
Findings of Court:
The Authority is an adjudicatory body and not a court of plenary jurisdiction. While its award is a deemed decree under Section 70(2), this fiction only ensures the award's finality and enforceability without granting the Authority the procedural power to execute it. Execution must be sought before the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority has the power, authority, and jurisdiction to execute its own award passed in reference proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The legislature's conscious omission of execution powers in the 2013 Act indicates an intent that the Authority should only adjudicate. A deeming provision elevating an award to a decree does not create a source of executing power for the adjudicating authority. The bar under Section 63 prevents civil courts from adjudicating disputes but does not prevent them from executing a final award.
Result: Petitions filed by the requiring bodies allowed; orders passed by the Authority in exercise of executory powers set aside. Petitions for expedition of execution before the Authority disposed of.
(B) Referential Legislation - Distinction between legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation - Section 60(1) of the Act of 2013 is an example of legislation by incorporation, meaning only the specifically borrowed provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, and power of execution cannot be inferred from the general existence of the Code (Paras 161-168).
(C) Inherent Powers - A statutory quasi-judicial authority does not possess inherent powers unless specifically conferred by the statute under which it is constituted (Paras 173-182).
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired for public purposes and subsequently referred for enhancement of compensation. The Authority enhanced the awards and initiated execution proceedings, including coercive measures against the requiring bodies. The requiring bodies challenged the jurisdiction of the Authority to act as an executing court.
Findings of Court:
The Authority is an adjudicatory body and not a court of plenary jurisdiction. While its award is a deemed decree under Section 70(2), this fiction only ensures the award's finality and enforceability without granting the Authority the procedural power to execute it. Execution must be sought before the Principal Court of Original Civil Jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority has the power, authority, and jurisdiction to execute its own award passed in reference proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The legislature's conscious omission of execution powers in the 2013 Act indicates an intent that the Authority should only adjudicate. A deeming provision elevating an award to a decree does not create a source of executing power for the adjudicating authority. The bar under Section 63 prevents civil courts from adjudicating disputes but does not prevent them from executing a final award.
Result: Petitions filed by the requiring bodies allowed; orders passed by the Authority in exercise of executory powers set aside. Petitions for expedition of execution before the Authority disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- constitutional law
- statutory interpretation
-
practice and procedure
-
execution of decrees and orders
- power to execute own orders (Para 1, 2, 3, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251)
- jurisdictional bar (Para 38, 39, 40, 55, 56, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243)
-
execution of decrees and orders
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhineet Jaiswal, Bhanu Bajpai, Paavan Awasthi, Vijay Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: ASGI, CSC, Amit Jaiswal, Amrita Yadav, Ankit Verma, Harsh Vardhan Singh, Kshemendra Shukla, Mustafa Ahmad Khan, Prabhat Kumar, Ram Dheeraj, Rani Singh, Vijay Kumar Srivastava
For the Petitioner: Abhineet Jaiswal, Bhanu Bajpai, Paavan Awasthi, Vijay Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: ASGI, CSC, Amit Jaiswal, Amrita Yadav, Ankit Verma, Harsh Vardhan Singh, Kshemendra Shukla, Mustafa Ahmad Khan, Prabhat Kumar, Ram Dheeraj, Rani Singh, Vijay Kumar Srivastava
Table of Contents
2. Requiring bodies argue LARRA lacks execution power; land owners argue it has such power under the Act. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 )
3. The Act of 2013 confers only adjudicatory powers; execution power not expressly or impliedly conferred on LARRA. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 )
4. LARRA cannot execute its own award; the award, deemed a decree, is executable only by a District Court. (Para 252 , 253 )
5. Petitions by requiring bodies allowed; LARRA to desist from executing awards; land owners' petitions disposed of. (Para 253 , 254 , 255 )
6. Does the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) have the power to execute its own award under the Act of 2013?
No. The Act of 2013 does not confer any power of execution on LARRA, either expressly or by necessary implication. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 , 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 , 221 , 222 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226 , 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 , 244 , 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 , 251 )
7. What is the effect of the deeming provision under Section 70 of the Act of 2013, which declares an LARRA award to be a decree?
The award is a deemed decree for finality and enforcement, but execution must be through a District Court, not by LARRA itself. (Para 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 , 196 , 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 )
8. Can an LARRA award be executed by a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Yes, by the District Court. The District Court acts as an executory arm but cannot adjudicate on the merits of the award. (Para 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 )
9. What is the scope of the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 63 of the Act of 2013?
The bar applies only to matters exclusively cognizable by LARRA; it does not bar a District Court from executing an LARRA award. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 55 , 56 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 )
10. Can a writ petition under Article 226 be maintained for enforcement of a final and crystallized LARRA award?
Yes. Once the award is final, a writ petition is maintainable against the State or its instrumentalities for arbitrary non-payment. (Para 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 , 249 , 250 )
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
| A | Exordium |
| B | Factual Matrix |
| C | Issue to be Decided |
| D | Submissions on behalf of Requiring Body |
| E | Submissions on behalf of UPEIDA |
| F | Submissions on behalf of LDA |
| G | Submissions on behalf of Land Owners |
| H | Submissions on behalf of the State of U.P. |
| I | Consideration of Judgments cited by the Parties |
| J | Discussions and Analysis |
| K | Capsulizing and Solutions |
| L | Peroration |
A. EXORDIUM:-
1. In this batch of petitions, a seminal question of public importance has been raised, calling in question the power of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘LARRA’) constituted under the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’) to execute its own award.
2. In effect, there are 45 petitions in this batch, out of which, 33 petitions have been filed by the 4th Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal, which is Central Armed Police Force under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India entrusted with guarding Nepal-Bhutan Boarder (hereinafter referred to as ‘SSB’). Then there are 8 petitions filed by Uttar Pradesh Expressways Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPEIDA’), one petition has been filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDA’) and 3 petitions have been filed by Land Owners, who are seeking expedition of their execution cases pending before LARRA.
3. Significantly, the land owners, who have filed the petition for expedition of their execution cases, are amongst the parties in the 3 petitions filed by SSB, wherein the validity of the orders passed by the LARRA as an Executing Court itself are under challenge. It is in this backdrop that all the petitions were bunched together and heard at length.
B. FACTUAL MATRIX:-
Petitions Filed By SSB:-
4. In the batch of petitions filed by the SSB, a total land measuring 14.988 hectares, situate in Villages Bendowa and Jagroli, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow was acquired for the establishment Frontier Headquarters and a Reserved Battalion of SSB. The Additional District Magistrate (Sharda Sahayak Pariyojna), Lucknow made an award on 07.09.2015 for a total sum of Rs.38,89,90,526/- in respect of the land so acquired.
5. 38 reference petitions were filed by different land owners, whose land was acquired for the aforesaid Scheme, seeking enhancement of the award under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. One of such reference filed by one of the land owner, namely, Bishambhar, registered as Misc. Case No.9/2022, was allowed by LARRA vide its award dated 12.01.2024, and it held the land owner to be entitled to enhanced compensation. LARRA not only enhanced the market value, but it also held that the land owner was entitled to an additional amount at 12% for the period 04.11.2010 to 25.03.2014, 100% solatium on the compensation amount and interest @ 9% per annum for one year from 25.03.2014 and thereafter @ 15% per annum until the payment was made.
6. The said award made by LARRA was challenged by SSB under Section 74 of the Act of 2013. However, the said appeal was delayed and was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal also met the same fate vide judgment and order dated 03.12.2025.
7. The land owner instituted an execution case bearing Case No.16/2024 before the LARRA itself, seeking execution of the award dated 12.01.2024. During the course of execution proceedings before LARRA, several orders were passed relating to recovery of the awarded sum including certain orders which were coercive in nature, such as directing the awarded amount to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In one of the orders, LARRA issued notice to the officials of SSB to show cause as to why they may not be subjected to civil imprisonment and they were also directed to furnish the details of the bank acc
