No Award Passed, Land Acquisition Lapsed: Allahabad High Court Directs State To Expunge NOIDA's Name From Revenue Record

The Allahabad High Court recently directed the authorities to expunge the name of NOIDA from revenue record pertaining to land of the petitioners and mutate their names in place of NOIDA.

The bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Donadi Ramesh held even if the notifications for acquisition of the petitioners’ land could be saved by a Supreme Court judgment (discussed later), proceedings would be hit by limitation under Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as no award had been passed after the enforcement of the new Act.

Factual Background:

Petitioners’ land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act in 2008. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 was issued in 2009. The notifications were subsequently challenged and quashed by the Supreme Court with the observation that State is at liberty to acquire land in accordance with law.

Petitioners filed a representation before Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar to expunge the name of NOIDA from the records as no award had been passed in pursuance of the notifications. It was also submitted that since the notifications had been quashed by the Apex Court, the name of the petitioner must be put in place of NOIDA. However, the said representation was rejected by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar solely on the ground that petitioners were not party to the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court and would thus, not be entitled to benefit of the said judgement.

Counsel for petitioner argued that once the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were quashed by the Supreme Court, the same also did not survive in respect of the land of the petitioners. Further, since no award was made pursuant to the notifications, it could be said that the respondents have accepted the legal position in respect to all tenure holders and not just those who appeared before the Supreme Court.

Lastly, it was contended that assuming the notifications survived with respect to the petitioner, by virtue of Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceedings had already elapsed since no award has been made till date.

Per Contra, Counsel for respondents submitted that the authorities (NOIDA) have initiated fresh steps for acquiring the land of the petitioners by sending proposals in 2019, though no response has been received from the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar.

High Court Verdict:

The Court noted that note that notifications quashed by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Estate Pvt. Ltd. were later on upheld by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Gajraj vs. State of U.P. and others. The judgement in Gajraj was upheld by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, however, Rajendra Estate Pvt. Ltd. was not placed before the Supreme Court. Thus, on one hand the notifications stood quashed by the Supreme Court, in latter judgment same notifications were upheld by the Apex Court.

The Court categorically observed the stand of the respondents that acquisition proceedings for the disputed land had lapsed in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Estate Pvt. Ltd.

The Court held that even if the notifications survive after the judgment in Rajendra Estate Pvt. Ltd., they will be hit by the bar under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

“Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 stipulates that where no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is made, then all provisions of the Act 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply. Assuming that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 survive even after the judgement in Rajendra Estate Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the land of the petitioners but since no award was made under the old Act, therefore, Section 24(1)(a) would get attracted and the respondents were under mandate of law to make award under the provisions of the new Act.”

The Court held that no award could be made now, as the same would be hit by limitation of 12 months prescribed under Section 25 of the Act of 2013. Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Mahesh and others, the Court held the acquisition proceedings “have lapsed as the award was not made within twelve months from the date of commencement of the Act.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to expunge the name of NOIDA from the revenue records in relation to the land of the petitioners and to mutate their name in place of NOIDA.

Counsel for Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Shiv Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Respondent: Rajeev Gupta, Ankur Agarwal

Case Title: Rajendra Kumar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 21621 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 379

Click Here To Read/Download Order