ORDER

The present review petition is filed to review the order dated 25.09.2019 made in M.F.A. No.3806/2019 on the file of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on the basis of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 11.8.2021 permitted the petitioner to withdraw Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.10452/2021 and to approach this Court by filing a review petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relegated the parties back to this Court to argue the point relating to the maintainability of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894 Act' for short) as the said point was not raised and argued before this Court in the appeal.

I. Brief facts of the case

3. On 7.2.2013, the review petitioner being the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a preliminary notification under the provisions of Sections 17(2) and 17(4) r/w Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act to acquire 3.16 acres of land out of 24 acres 4 guntas in property bearing No.59/1 sitauted at Binny Mill Road, Bengaluru North taluk, within the BBMP limits, invoking special powers in cases of urgency and same was published in the official gazette on 14.2.2013 and was affixed at convenient places near the land indicating the possession being taken without hearing the objections as contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act and also given wide publications in the newspapers. Accordingly on 18.11.2013 final notification under section 6(1) r/w Section 17(2) of the 1894 Act was issued and possession of the land was secured. On 1.1.2014, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('2013 Act' for short) came into force. On 8.10.2014 the award came to be passed under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

4. On 29.4.2015, the respondent objected the award passed by the present review petitioner and thereby filed an application for reference. The Special Land Acquisition officer ('SLAO' for short) after receipt of the said application, has made a reference under Section 64(1) of the 2013 Act and the reference authority registered the same in LAC No.33/2017. The reference authority considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record by the judgment and award dated 29.10.2018 allowed the reference in part holding that the respondent is entitled for market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.8624/- per square feet and also compensation under Section 29 of the 2013 Act with all statutory benefits.

5. Aggrieved by the Judgment & Award passed by the reference authority, the review petitioner filed MFA 3806/2019 before this Court. This Court by the judgment & award dated 25.9.2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the review petitioner as being barred by limitation by considering the appeal to have been filed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment & award passed by this Court, the review petitioner filed SLP No.10452/2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 11.8.2021 while dismissing the SLP as withdrawn, has permitted the present review petitioner to approach this Court by filing a review petition and argue the point relating to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Hence, the present review petition is filed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

II. Arguments advanced by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General for the review petitioner

8. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned AAG for the review petitioner contended that the fundamental issue which arises for consideration before this Court is the extent to which 2013 Act applies to acquisitions that have been started under the 1894 Act, but where award is not made when the 2013 Act came into force. He would contend that under Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 act, all the provisions relating to determination of compensation shall apply, however the question which remains unanswered is whether all provisions of