Acquisition Proceedings Initiated Under UP Awas Vikas Adhiniyam 1965, Cannot Be Held To Have Lapsed Under Land Acquisition Act, 2013: High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that acquisition proceedings initiated under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 cannot be held to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held

“While Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 would not apply and the acquisition would not lapse but the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the New Act, 2013 and the date of reference for determining the compensation would be 01.01.2014 on which the New Act, 2013 was enforced.”

Factual Background

Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the notifications dated 12.06.2004 and 24.06.2010 issued under Section 28 and Section 32 respectively of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 on grounds that the acquisition lapsed and was barred on account of the delay in concluding the proceedings.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the award was not passed to date, the acquisition stood lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Counsel for U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad argued that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 had no provision for automatic lapse of acquisition. Since the acquisition was made under the Adhiniyam, it was pleaded that the acquisition had not lapsed merely because there was a delay in making the award.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another, to argue that amended Section 11-A is inapplicable to acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam. By the same analogy, it was argued that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act will not apply to acquisitions under the Adhiniyam.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that Section 55 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 makes certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applicable to acquisitions under the Adhiniyam subject to modifications in the Schedule of the Adhiniyam.

It was observed that when the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was amended in 1984, the proposal for amendment contained a stipulation that the acquisition would deemed lapsed if the award was not made within a specified period.

The Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Another held that the provisions of the LA Act which were incorporated in the Adhiniyam by virtue of Section 59 of the Adhiniyam, subject to modifications specified in the Schedule, shall not be amended when the provisions of the LA Act are amended.

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a proper construction of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam it must be held that while incorporating the provisions of the L.A. Act in the Adhiniyam the intention of the legislature was that amendments in the L.A. Act relating to determination and payment of compensation would be applicable to acquisition of lands for the purposes of the Adhiniyam. This means that the amendments introduced in the L.A. Act by the 1984 Act relating to determination and payment of compensation, viz, Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) and 28 as amended by the 1984 Act would be applicable to acquisitions for the purpose of the Adhiniyam under Section 55 of the Adhiniyam,” held the Apex Court.

The Apex Court had held that even if the notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam was not acted upon for 2 years, the acquisition did not lapse.

Noting Section 105 of the Act of 2013, the Court held that “The Adhiniyam is not a specified legislation under the Fourth Schedule and therefore, the provisions of the New Act, 2013 ipso facto, do not apply to the acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam. Consequently, Section 24(2) would also not get attracted.”

The Court also took note of its earlier judgment in Hem Chandra v. State of U.P. and others wherein it had extended the benefit of provisions regarding compensation under the New Act will apply to the acquisitions under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam.

The Court held that while benefits of provisions regarding compensation could be extended to acquisitions under the Adhiniyam made prior to 01.01.2014, by virtue of Section 24(2) of the acquisition would not lapse and the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: M/s Bir Hotels Pvt Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 23248 of 2024]

Counsel for Petitioner: Aishwarya Pratap Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Harshit Pandey, Nipun Singh, Naman Agrawal

Click Here To Read/Download Order