The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 supersedes the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for any notifications after its enactment.

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“Declare that the award dated 15.05.2019 passed by 3rd respondent at Annexure-E under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has lapsed by virtue Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 in so far as petitioner concerned in R.S.No.40/2 and issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to initiate acquisition proceedings in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the 1st respondent - State as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that though several facts, grounds and reliefs have been urged and sought for in the petition, the petitioner is aggrieved only by the Award dated 15.05.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of contending that in the light of the undisputed fact that the Preliminary Notification under Section 28 (2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘the KIAD Act’) was issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 05.11.2015, after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the said Act of 2013'), the petitioner would be entitled to compensation in terms of the said Act of 2013 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A.Act'), as wrongly applied by the respondents, who have erroneously passed the impugned Award under the L.A.Act and not under the said Act of 2013 and as such, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. It is also submitted on instructions that insofar as the other grounds and contentions urged in the petition except the challenge to the award, are not pressed by the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Sri.Balaji Corporate Services and another vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.43206/2018 c/w W.P.No.53716/2017 Dated 21.04.2022.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that since the petitioner is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the respondents in the impugned Award, the only remedy available for the petitioner is to seek reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation and on this ground also, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that Section 30 of the KIAD Act, was amended w.e.f. 05.04.2022 and the same is prospective and not retrospective and would not apply to the acquisition proceedings initiated prior to 05.04.2022 and consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the acquisition proceedings, in relation to the subject property were initiated pursuant to the Preliminary Notification dated 05.11.2015, which was issued subsequent to 01.01.2014 when the said Act of 2013 came into force. Under identical circumstances, in Sri.Balaji’s case supra, this Court held as under:-

“12. On overall consideration of the entire material on record, the legal principles that emerge from the aforesaid discussion can be summarised as under:-

(i) All awards passed and compensation payable / paid in favour of land losers pursuant to preliminary notification under Section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 , issued subsequent to 01.01.2014 would have to be under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .

(ii)