LI Network
Published on: January 17, 2024 at 13:10 IST
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the applicability of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 depends on the date of the award, not the date of possession taken by authorities.
The bench, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, asserted that Section 24(1)(a) mandates that if no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made, the provisions of the new Act of 2013 apply, regardless of whether possession has been taken under the provisions of the old Act.
The Court highlighted that since the Act of 2013 came into force on January 1, 2014, and the award in question was made after this date, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 would be applicable. Consequently, the compensation award must adhere to the provisions outlined in the Act of 2013.
In the case at hand, the petitioner’s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with possession taken in 2012. However, the award was passed in 2014, prompting a challenge on the grounds that the Act of 2013 was not followed. The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed, allowing them to make a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
The petitioner’s Section 64 application for reference was rejected, contending that since possession occurred under the 1984 Act, compensation could not be determined under the Act of 2013.
The petitioner argued that, in line with Section 24, the Act of 2013 should be applicable as no award had been declared on the date the Act of 2013 came into force.
The rejection by the Collector was deemed misconceived, as the application sought reference, not enhancement of compensation.
The Court referenced a prior judgment to support the argument that Act of 2013 provisions would apply if no award had been made under Section 11 of the Act of 2013.
The standing counsel asserted that the estimated compensation amount was deposited by the State Government before the award, and notices were issued for withdrawal, rendering the Act of 2013 inapplicable.
The High Court maintained that Section 24(1)(a) dictates that if no award has been passed under Section 11 of the 1984 Act before the commencement of the 2013 Act, all provisions of the 2013 Act apply.
The Court emphasized that the Act’s applicability is not contingent on whether possession occurred under the 1984 Act or after the commencement of the 2013 Act.
The Court further ruled that the deposit made by the State Government before the award did not affect the petitioner’s right to seek reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
The Court quashed the Collector’s order rejecting the reference application, directing the Collector to refer the dispute to the Authority within three weeks from the communication of the order.
Case Title: Chandrabhan Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others