Land Acquisition Award Date Triggers 2013 Act Compensation Rules and Right to Reference, Rules Allahabad High Court

Allahabad, India - In a significant ruling clarifying the rights of landowners affected by acquisitions initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Allahabad High Court has held that if the award for the acquired land was made on or after January 1, 2014, the compensation determination principles and the right to seek enhanced compensation through a reference under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013) will apply.

The Court quashed an order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate of Sant Kabir Nagar that had rejected a landowner's application seeking reference of a compensation dispute to the Authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The Collector had erroneously held that because possession of the land was taken under the old 1894 Act before the 2013 Act came into force, the new law was inapplicable.

Case Background

The petitioner's land in Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Possession was taken on June 6, 2012, using the urgency provisions (Section 17) of the old Act. However, the final award determining compensation under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was made on December 26, 2014 – nearly a year after the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 came into effect on January 1, 2014.

The landowner initially challenged the award in a previous writ petition, arguing that the principles of the 2013 Act should have been followed. While the Court in the previous petition did not quash the award, it specifically left it open for the petitioner to seek a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act for enhancement of compensation.

Acting on this liberty, the petitioner filed an application with the Collector on September 15, 2017, seeking the mandatory reference to the Authority under Section 64 of the new Act for redetermination of compensation. The Collector, however, rejected this application via an order dated July 8, 2018, reasoning that since possession was taken under the 1894 Act before the 2013 Act's commencement, the new Act's compensation provisions were not applicable.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Collector's order was legally flawed because Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act explicitly states that if no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was made before the commencement of the 2013 Act, then all provisions of the new Act relating to compensation determination would apply. Since the award was made on December 26, 2014 (after January 1, 2014), Section 24(1)(a) was squarely applicable. It was further contended that the previous High Court order allowing the petitioner to seek reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act was binding.

Conversely, the State counsel argued that since 80% of the estimated compensation was deposited and possession taken under the old Act, the provisions of the new Act would not apply.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court critically examined Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which reads:

"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases. -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), - (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply;"

The Court emphasized that this provision makes the applicability of the new Act's compensation rules dependent solely on whether the award under the old Act was made before the 2013 Act came into force. It clarified that the date of taking possession under the old Act is irrelevant for the purposes of Section 24(1)(a).

Applying this principle, the Court found that since the award in the petitioner's case was made on December 26, 2014, i.e., after January 1, 2014, the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) were triggered. Consequently, the compensation had to be determined according to the principles laid down in the 2013 Act, and the petitioner had the right to seek a reference for enhancement under Section 64 of the same Act.

The Court also noted that its previous order explicitly permitting the petitioner to seek a Section 64 reference under the 2013 Act had attained finality and could not be disputed by the State.

Addressing the State's argument regarding the deposit of 80% estimated compensation and taking possession under Section 17 of the 1894 Act, the Court held this was a procedure prescribed by the old Act when urgency provisions were invoked to take possession before the award. This step, required under Section 17(3A) of the 1894 Act, is accounted for during final compensation determination under the old Act's Section 31 and has no bearing on the landowner's right to seek reference under Section 64 of the new Act, which becomes applicable by virtue of Section 24(1)(a).

Citing a Division Bench judgment of the same Court in Sabita Sharma vs. State of U.P. , the High Court reiterated that even for acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act, if the award was not made before the 2013 Act commenced, all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to compensation determination apply.

Conclusion

Based on its analysis, the Allahabad High Court found the Collector's order rejecting the reference application unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Collector to refer the petitioner's dispute regarding enhancement of compensation to the Authority under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, within three weeks. The Authority was further directed to decide the reference expeditiously in accordance with law.

This judgment reinforces the retrospective application of the beneficial compensation provisions of the 2013 Act to pending acquisition proceedings under the old Act where the award was finalised after the new law came into effect, ensuring that affected landowners have access to the mechanisms for seeking fair compensation provided by the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.