IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Surender, JJ.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Satpal Singh Ahluwalia, S/o.Late Santokh Singh Ahluwalia – Respondent
WA No. 1952 of 2022 AND CMP NO. 14254 OF 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT :
S.M.Subramaniam J.
The order under assail is dated 25.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.15495 of 2015. The 4th respondent in the writ petition Power Grid Corporation of India filed the present intra Court appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent mainly on the ground that the impugned writ order as well as the directions issued would fall beyond the scope of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') (Act 30 of 2013).
2. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant would mainly contend that, the acquisition proceedings commenced on 07.09.2011 and after following the procedures as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act of the year 1894, an award came to be passed on 31.07.2012 under Section 11 of the old . After passing an award on 31.07.2012, notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued. The land owners received the compensation. The first respondent / writ petitioner, in response through his letter dated 16.08.2012, authorised one Mr.M.Sivakumar to receive the compensation amount and he has received the compensation. Possession was taken and the land has been utilised for public purpose.
3. Subsequently, a reference has been made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 to the Sub-Court, Vellore in L.A.O.P.No.8 of 2015. Before the LA.O.P. Court, it was contended that the interest due to the land owners was calculated from 15.09.2011 to 25.05.2012, however the land owners are entitled to get interest till 31.07.2012. The mistake identified, was rectified by issuing an amended order by the Land Acquisition Officer in proceedings dated 30.05.2014. Consequently, 9% interest from 26.05.2012 to 31.07.2012 was added along with the compensation initially granted in the award dated 31.07.2012 and a total compensation of Rs.8,13,723/- was determined.
4. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan would contend that a plain reading of Section 24(1)(a) makes it crystal clear that, where no award under Section 11of the oldLand Acquisition Act1894 has been made, then alone the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 would apply. In the present case, the land acquisition proceedings concluded by affording opportunity to the land owners and award came to be passed on 31.07.2012 and the proceedings dated 30.05.2014 is only an amendment carried out to grant interest till 31.07.2012. Interest was calculated for the left out period of about four months and therefore the new Act will not apply and thus, the Writ Court has committed an error in directing the Sub Court to determine the compensation under Act 30 of 2013.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would oppose by stating that, the term "award" is to be interpreted that an award in all respects must be complete under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, an error was identified in the original award dated 31.07.2012 and an amended order was passed in proceedings dated 30.05.2014. Thus, the award is to be construed as a complete award within the meaning of Act 1894 taking note of the later proceedings dated 30.05.2014 and thus the Writ Court is right in arriving at the decision. It is to be construed that the amended order dated 30.05.2014 as a fresh and only award under the Act and thus the present appeal is to be rejected.
6. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash would rely on the following judgments to establish that the original award dated 31.07.2012 cannot be construed as an ‘award’ within the meaning ofSection 11of the Act, 1894. .
Sunder vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another . (1988) 3 SCC 751
Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation vs. Supai Munda and Others . (1996) 4 S.C.C.533.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020)
Amendments to an existing land acquisition award do not create a new award under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
The revised award passed after the expiry of two years from the date of Declaration was deemed to be a fresh award, and the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 11-A of Act, 1894. The c....
(1) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make award acqu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings would continue under the old Land Acquisition Act if the award was passed before the commencement of the new Act, ....
Compensation for land acquired under the old Act must be determined using the provisions of the new Act if the award was not made before the new Act's commencement.
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.
No lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 occurs if compensation has been paid and possession of the acquired land has been assumed, even if no award has been made.
Compensation for requisitioned land lapses if not awarded timely, necessitating initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings, as per relevant statutory provisions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.