The court emphasized the applicability of the 2013 Act to the determination of compensation and upheld the public interest in the construction of the dam.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, filed pro bono publico, the petitioners, inter alia, have assailed the validity of the action of respondents in construction of the reservoir dam, namely, Pagra Dam in District Sagar. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to construct the dam at village Pancham Nagar and not to shift the same to village Pagra i.e. at a distance of 13 Kms. from Pancham Nagar. The petitioners also seek quashment of notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 as well as notice issued under section 9 dated 6-9-2013, 4-12-2013 and 20-1-2014, respectively, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’).

2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that on the basis of survey which was conducted and approved by the State Government, an administrative sanction for the first phase of project for construction of the dam at village Pagra was granted by the State Government on 31-10-2010. Under the aforesaid medium project, as per administrative approval dated 31-1-2012, big reservoir at village Pagra, pick-up dam at village Pancham Nagar and the left bank main canal are proposed to be constructed which emanates from village Pancham Nagar for irrigation of 9,900 hectares of cultivable command area.

3. On an objection being raised by the public in general against construction of dam at village Pagra, the Water Resources Department constituted a committee comprising two Chief Engineers. The Committee inspected the spot in the presence of Collector and the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Sagar and explored the possibility whether the dam can be constructed at any other place. However, the Committee in its report dated 15-5-2013 after consideration of objection of the villagers, found that the proposed site for construction of the dam is suitable in all respects. Thereafter, the process of acquisition of land was set in motion by issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894 on 6-9-2013 and an enquiry under section 5-A of the Act was held. The objections preferred by the villagers were rejected by the Commissioner after due consideration vide order dated 30-11-2013.

4. Thereafter, declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 4-12-2013 and notices under section 9 of the Act were issued to the land owners on 20-1-2014 and ultimately, an Award was passed on 22-4-2014 in which it was provided that the amount of compensation shall be determined as per the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’). In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners while inviting our attention to section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act has submitted that the proceeding for acquisition of the land in question on enforcement of the 2013 Act stood lapsed. It was further pointed out that no personal notices were served on the villagers in respect of an enquiry under section 5-A of the 1894 Act, which is mandatory in nature. It is also submitted that notification under section 4 of the 1894 Act is not saved by section 114 of the 2013 Act read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Radhyshyam (dead) through LRs. and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 553 and Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirilal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has submitted that pursuant to the public notice dated 11-10-2013, all the villagers had submitted the joint objections which were dealt with by the Land Acquisition Officer and were forwarded for consideration to the competent authority namely the Commissioner, Sagar D