IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Where no award under Section 11 of Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply.

JUDGMENT

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 08.07.2018 passed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Collector/District Magistate, Sant Kabir Nagar rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 15.09.2017 for referring the dispute relating to enhancement of compensation to the Authority in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner has also challenged the award of the Collector dated 26.12.2014.

2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the subject land of the petitioner bearing plot No. 530 situated at Village-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1894”). The possession of the land was taken on 06.06.2012 followed by award dated 26.12.2014. The petitioner challenged the award in Writ - C No. 7555 of 2016 on the ground that while making the award, the principles contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”) had not been followed. The said contention was not accepted as the award did make reference to the provisions of the Act of 2013, however, it was left open to the petitioner to seek reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The petitioner, therefore, by means of application dated 15.09.2017, applied for the enhancement as per provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.

3. Indisputably, after the filing of the said application by the petitioner, a report was submitted by A.D.M. Finance and Revenue dated 16.12.2017 that at the relevant time, the Authority was not in existence, having not been constituted as per provisions of the Act. Therefore, it would not be possible to make the reference. It is evident from the said report that the State-respondents, at the relevant time, had no objection in referring the dispute to the Authority, but for the fact that it had not been constituted by that time.

4. However, by the impugned order, the District Magistrate has rejected the application observing that possession of the subject land was taken on 06.06.2012 and award was made on 26.12.2014. As possession was taken under the Act of 1894 and when the Act of 2013 was not applicable, therefore, the application for redetermining the compensation on the basis of new Act of 2013 is without any merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order suffers from manifest error of law inasmuch as the provisions of the Act of 2013 were fully applicable regard being had to the fact that no award was made until 01.01.2014. He further submits that even as per the observations made by this Court while deciding the previous writ petition of the petitioner, the respondents were under obligation to refer the dispute to the Authority as per Section 64 of the Act of 2013. It is also urged that the Collector wrongly treated the application filed by the petitioner as an application to redetermine the compensation, although, it was for making reference to the Authority as per provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 2013.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sabita Sharma vs. State of U.P., 2023 (3) AWC 3062, wherein it is held that even in case of acquisition under the Act of 1894, in case award has not been made under Section 11 of the Act of 2013, then all the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to determination of the compensation would become applicable. He submits that it is also the mandate of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that for the acquisition in question, the estimated amount of compensation was duly deposited by the Government much before the aw