S.24 Land Acquisition Act 2013 | Applicability To Prior Acquisitions Depends On Date Of Award, Not Date Of Taking Possession: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court held that the applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 depends upon the date on which the award is made and not on the date on which possession was taken over by the authorities.

The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,

“Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 clearly mandates that where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of the new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply. The applicability of the said provision is not dependent upon the fact as to whether possession has been taken or not under the provisions of the old Act.”

The Court held that the Act of 2013 came into force on 1^st January 2014. Since the award was made after the Act of 2013 had come into force, Section 24(1)(a) would be applicable, and the award of compensation was to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

Factual Background

Petitioner's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession was taken in 2012. However, the award was passed in 2014 which was challenged on ground that the Act of 2013 was not followed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to make a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

The application made by the petitioner under Section 64 (Reference to Authority) was rejected on grounds that since the possession was taken under the 1984 Act, compensation could not be determined under the Act of 2013.

Counsel for petitioner argued that since no award had been declared on the date of 2013 Act coming into force, by virtue of Section 24, new Act will be applicable. It was argued that the rejection of application by the Collector as being application for enhancement of compensation as misconceived. The application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 was filed for reference to be made to the Authorities, and the same should have been forwarded to the Authority.

Reliance was placed on Sabita Sharma vs. State of U.P., wherein the Allahabad High Court held that even in case of acquisition under the Act of 1894, if award had not been made under Section 11 of the Act of 2013, then all the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to determination of the compensation would become applicable.

Standing Counsel submitted that estimated amount of compensation was duly deposited by the State Government before passing of the award. Notices were given to petitioner and similarly situated persons to withdraw the amount. Accordingly, the 2013 Act was inapplicable.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that Section 24(1)(a) provides that if no award has been passed under Section 11 of the 1984 Act in acquisition proceedings before commencement of the 2013 Act, then all provisions of the Act of 2013 will apply. The Court held that the applicability of the Act of 2013 does not depend upon whether possession was taken under the Act of 1984 or after the commencement of the Act of 2013.

The Court further held that since the order of the High Court permitting him to seek reference had attained finality, it was not open to the respondents to reject the request for reference.

The Court held that the deposit of money made by the State Government prior to the award has no bearing on the rights of the petitioner to seek reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

“In the instant case, the respondents while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act also invoked the power under Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1984 entitling them to take possession even before award is made. It is in view thereof that possession was taken on 6.6.2012 even before making of the award. In such an eventuality, Section 17 (3A) makes it imperative that 80% of the estimated amount of compensation is tendered to the persons interested. The said amount is taken into account while determining the amount of compensation required to be tendered under Section 31 in pursuance of the award made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894.”

Accordingly, the order of the Collector rejecting the reference application was quashed with a direction to the Collector to refer the dispute to the Authority within three weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Case Title: Chandrabhan Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24 [WRIT - C No. - 18397 of 2018]

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 24

Click Here To Read/Download Order