The Right to Fair Compensation provisions cannot be retroactively applied to acquisitions under the 1965 Act unless explicitly amended.

1. This writ petition has been filed claiming benefits of the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) on the ground that in the present case though the land has been acquired under the U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam , 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Act), the petitioners are entitled to all benefits under 2013 Act inasmuch as if such benefit is denied the same would violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if such benefits are available in relation to acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) then in that event in view of S.55 of the 1965 Act the same analogy should be applied as the Awas Vikas Parishad is empowered to acquire land in terms of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894.

2. The acquisition in this case is an outcome of notification under S.28 and S.32 of the 1965 Act that were published on 15.4.1980 and 15.7.1982 respectively. The award was pronounced on 23.9.1986. It is alleged by the petitioner that even though the compensation was deposited with the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Lucknow on 7.3.1987 the same has not been paid to the petitioners or their predecessors till date. The father of the petitioner had assailed the acquisition by filing the W.P. No. 7791 of 1987 where the interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed. The respondents wanted to negotiate the said acquisition and a decision is alleged to have been taken on 6.7.1988 wherein a condition was imposed that the petitioner will withdraw his W.P. No. 7791 of 1987. The father of the petitioners who had filed the writ petition passed away on 30.9.1991. According to the petitioners a decision was taken to exempt certain area of the land by the Board in its meeting on 29.10.2001 and accordingly while proceeding to dispose of W.P. No. 7791 of 1987 this Court directed for consideration of such decision relating to exemption. The decision rendered by the State Government refusing to accede to the said request was challenged in W.P. No. 710 (MB) of 2009 that has been ultimately dismissed by us on 3.2.2017.

3. Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh contends that by virtue of the provisions of S.55 of the 1965 Act whatever benefits are available, the acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 the same would automatically be available to all such acquisitions under the 1965 Act. He submits that since the 2013 Act refers to the provisions of 1894 Act and the acquisitions made thereunder, and is a beneficial piece of legislation for farmers then by adopting the analogy of the latest apex court decisions, the provisions of the 2013 Act should also be read as extending benefits to the acquisitions made under the 1965 Act. In the event such an interpretation is avoided the same would result in discrimination and will violate Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The contention, therefore, is that S.24(2) of the 2013 Act and its implications are also clearly available to acquisitions made under the 1965 Act under S.28 and S.32 thereof read with S.55..

4. Sri Singh has then invited the attention of the Court to the decision in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam and another, AIR 1998 SC 1028 to urge that in that case also where the matter relating to payment of higher compensation arose, the same was interpreted in favour of t