Sheela Yadav vs Commissioner Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Lko. And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 9913 of 2026
Sheela Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commissioner Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
Lko. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tushar Manjhwar, Rishabh Yadav,
Sant Prasad Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ratnesh Chandra, C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and Shri Aadi Nigam, learned Advocate
holding brief for Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing
for U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
in the relief clause while mentioning the award dated 29.01.2020,
due to inadvertence, Annexure No. 6 has been mentioned,
whereas it should be Annexure No. 5. We take it to be accordingly.
3. The parties counsel are ad idem that acquisition in question
was initiated under the provisions of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 way back in the year 2010. A
notification under Section 28 of the Act, 1965 was issued in the
year 2010, whereas the notification under Section 32 was issued in
the year 2017 and the award was also rendered subsequent to
01.01.2014 i.e. it was rendered on 29.01.2020. In the interregnum,
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into
force w.e.f. 01.01.2014.
4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner relying upon the

WRIC No. 9913 of 2026
2
decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal Nos. 990-
991 of 2025 (Aasha Verma & Ors. vs. Commissioner Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) dated 24.01.2025
and Civil Appeal No.3855 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No.779
of 2016, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Chandra Shekhar
and others , decided on 05.03.2024, is that in view of section 24(1)
as the award could not be rendered prior to 01.01.2014, therefore,
it has to be rendered in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. The counsel for the Awas Vikas Parishad could not deny the fact
that there are two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Aasha Verma (Supra) and Chandra Shekhar (Supra) directly
on the issue involved. In fact, the similar issue has been
considered by this very Bench in Writ-C No. 1369 of 2026 , which
was also a matter pertaining to the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad,
Lucknow and the writ petition was allowed vide judgement dated
27.04.2026, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Anupma Singh and Ms. Akansha
Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos.2
and 3 and Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
2. Let the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad be arrayed through the Housing
Commissioner, Lucknow during the course of the day. Shri Ratnesh Chandra,
learned counsel already appears for the respondent no.1- Commissioner, Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad, therefore, no fresh notice need be issued in this regard with
respect to newly impleaded party.
3. This petition had been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i). To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
impugned award dated 29/01/2020 (contained as Annexure no. 6 to the writ
petition) passed by the opposite party no. 2 in respect of gata no. 547 bearing an
area of 0.134 hect. and gata no. 566 bearing an area of 0.684 hectare, Village
Rajapur, Tehsil lakhimpur Kheri, District Kheri in respect of the petitioners.

WRIC No. 9913 of 2026
3
(ii). To issue writ, order or direction in the form of mandamus whereby, directing
the opposite parties to grant compensation to the petitioners in light of the
provisions of the New Act of 2013 (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) along with all the
necessary interest and benefits including solatium, additional compensation, and
Interest as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."
4. On 23.03.2026, we had passed the following order:-
"1. Heard.
2. The petitioners seek quashing of the award dated 29.01.2020 on the ground
that compensation has been determined therein in terms of the old land acquisition
act i.e. the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereas in view of the decision of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.990-991 of 2025 (Aasha Verma & Ors. vs.
Commissioner Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) dated
24.01.2025, the compensation was to be determined as per the new act i.e. Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. Prima facie the contention appears to be correct. Let a
response be filed to the writ petition within two weeks. One week time thereafter
shall be available to the petitioners for filing rejoinder.
3. List this case on 27.04.2026 as a fresh case.
4. The matter can be disposed of on the next date itself as the legal position
appears to be settled."
5. Inspite of sufficient opportunity having been granted, no response has been filed
by the opposite parties. However, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad, which is the main contesting party, having issued the
notification of acquisition and being liable to pay the compensation in lieu thereof,
is present, so is the State Counsel.
6. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners are tenure holders of gata
no.547 (0.134 hectares) and gata no.566 (0.684 hectares) situated in Village
Rajapur, Tehsil Lakhimpur Kheri, District Kheri. These lands were acquired by the
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, U.P., Lucknow vide notifications issued under
Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 on

WRIC No. 9913 of 2026
4
04.09.2010 and 02.09.2017, respectively. On 01.01.2014 the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. Section 24 of the said Act reads as
under:-
"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,-
(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; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said
Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),
where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior
to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not
been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall
initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a
majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation
in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
7. In the case at hand, the award, which is impugned, was rendered subsequent to
01.01.2014, that is on 29.01.2020. Under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam, 1965 Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was incorporated in
a modified form by virtue of Section 55 read with Schedule referred herein.
However, in the case at hand, the notifications were not issued with respect to

WRIC No. 9913 of 2026
5
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in its modified form, as referred
herein-above, therefore, the possession indisputably was not taken prior to
rendering of the award dated 29.01.2020 and apparently it was not taken prior to
01.01.2014, meaning thereby, neither the possession had been taken prior to
01.01.2014, nor the award had been rendered, as such, there is no question of
compensation having been deposited prior to 01.01.2014. In fact, Clause 10 of the
award, impugned herein, itself mentioned that the possession would be taken after
the award being rendered as per Rules. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been
repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which holds the field since
01.01.2014. The case is squarely covered by the provision of Section 24 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 which has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Asha Verma and ors. vs. Commissioner Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad Uttar Pradesh and ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 990-991 of 2025. The entire
judgment is quoted herein-below:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2021 passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, inter alia holding that
the and provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the "2013 Act")
shall not be applicable to the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam, 1965 (in short, the "1965 Act") even though these provisions would be
applicable in case of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (in short, the "1894 Act").
3. The facts of the instant case provide that the Land of the appellants measuring
1.825 hectares comprising Khasra No. 455 situated in Village Kaladundu,
Pargana-Lakhimpur, Tehsil and District Lakhimpur Kheri was sought to be
acquired by the State-authority. For this purpose, Notification under Section 28 of
the 1965 Act was issued on 04.09.2010. This was essentially equivalent to a
Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Thereafter, Declaration under Section
32 of 1965 Act was published on 02.09.2017, which was again equivalent to
Declaration Section 6 a the of 1894 Act. under Subsequently, after lapse of 10
years from the acquiring Notification, the Award was passed by the Commissioner,

WRIC No. 9913 of 2026
6
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on 29.01.2020.
4. It goes without saying that in the interregnum, the 2013 Act had come into force
with effect from 01.01.2014. It is also admitted that since the 1965 Act did not
provide an independent mechanism to assess compensation or the procedure
thereof, the one contemplated under the 1894 Act was required to be followed, in
terms of Section 55 of the 1965 Act.
5. We have heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties, and perused the
record.
6. At the outset, we hold doubtlessly that provisions of the 2013 Act are attracted
for the purpose of awarding compensation to the present appellants. we say so by
placing reliance on Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, which mandates that where the
acquisition proceedings pending as on 01.01.2014, the award in respect of such
pending acquisition shall be passed in accordance with provisions of 2013 Act, not
the 1894 Act. In the case in hand, the was initiated are on acquisition process
84.09.2010, but declaration under Section 32 of the 1965 Act was issued only on
02.09.2017, by which time the 2013 Act had already come into force. Needless to
say, once the 2013 Act held the field, the 1965 Act could no longer operate within
the contours of the 1894 Act, and the pending acquisition has to be compensated
under the new scheme contemplated by the 2013 Act.
7. That being so, we have no hesitation in holding the High Court's view in the
impugned order is completely misdirected, at least insofar as it provided that the
provisions of the 2013 Act were not attracted in the present case.
8. For the reasons aforestated, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned
order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants are held entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Land
Acquisition Collector is directed appropriate award within a to pass an to period of
three months, without prejudice to the rights of the parties challenge the same
before an appropriate forum."
8. By the said judgment a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court dated
16.06.2021 rendered in Land Acquisition No.9373 of 2021 was set aside as being
erroneous. On a bare reading of the above quoted decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, it is clear that Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

WRIC No. 9913 of 2026
7
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has
been held to be applicable to acquisition under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the compensation payable to the petitioners,
which have been calculated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam,
1965 read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of the Section 55 of the the
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and its Schedule, is not
payable, instead the compensation should have been determined under the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 and the same is payable to the petitioners.
10. We, accordingly, quash the award dated 29.01.2020 qua the petitioners to the
extent it calculates the compensation payable to them, under the U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
further direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned to now calculate the
compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Asha
Verma (Supra) and render a fresh award at the earliest and whatever is awarded
shall be paid to the petitioners subject to their right, if any, to seek enhancement or
to challenge the award, if there is a cause.
11. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within two months.
12. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed."
6. Considering the admitted factual and legal position, we do not
deem it necessary to call for any counter affidavit. In view of the
above, this petition is also allowed in terms of the above quoted
judgement dated 27.04.2026.
September 14, 2026
Lokesh Kumar
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
LOKESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench