Dilshad Ali And And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

A.F.R.
Judgment reserved on 12.10.2026
Judgment delivered on 03.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT – C No. - 9903 of 2023
Dilshad Ali and 5 others …..Petitioners(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3
others
…..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar
Singh, Shreya Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avneesh Tripathi, C.S.C., Nipun
Singh, Vineet Pandey
Court No. - 29
HON’BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON’BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
(Per : Hon’ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)
1. Heard Mrs. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
and learned Standing Counsel who has appeared for the State
respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :
“a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record
quash and set aside the notification dated 12/19.06.2004 issued by respondent
authority/government under Section 28 and the consequent notification dated
07.08.2010 under Section 32 (1) of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam so
far as it relates to the land owned by the petitioners Plot No.60/1, 60/2 and 59
Village Chunaheti, Pargana & District Saharanpur.

2
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities not interfere in peaceful possession of the respective land of
the petitioners and declaration that the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide
notification dated 12/19.06.2004 issued by respondent authority/government under
Section 28 and the consequent notification dated 07.08.2010 under Section 32 (1) of
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam as having been lapsed.
c. To pass such other and further order, which this Hon'ble court may in fit and
proper in the circumstances of the present case.
d. Award the cost of this petition to the Petitioner.”
3. Mrs. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (“Parishad” for brevity) acquired
certain lands of village Chunahati, Mavi Khurd and Syeedpur under the
Delhi Road Bhumi Vikas Evam Griasthan Yojna 10. Notification under
section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam, 1965 (“Adhiniyam”
for brevity) was issued on 12.06.2004. Thereafter, section 32 notification
under the Adhiniyam was issued on 07.08.2010. The petitioners’ lands
comprising of plot no. 59, 60/1 and 60/2 ad-measuring 18226 sq. mtrs,
13770 sq. mtrs and 13771 sq. mtrs respectively in village Mavi Khurd
were also acquired by means of the said notifications. It was further
submitted that as per the instructions, which were called by the Court
vide order dated 17.04.2023, the award has not yet been made till
16.06.2026 even though an amount of 20,39,12,702/- was asked to be
₹
deposited by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur (“SLAO”
for brevity) for the said acquisition. Furthermore, it is no longer res
integra that the compensation to be awarded under the acquisition made
by the Parishad after coming into force the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act” for brevity), has to be determined in light of
the provisions of the 2013 Act taking the date of determination of market
value to be 01.01.2014 and not the date of section 28 notification.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress the argument
regarding the date of determination of market value as 01.01.2014 relied

3
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
1
upon the judgment of Hem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others; . She
submitted that as per the said judgment, which was also regarding an
acquisition done by the Parishad, the Court had held that as the
acquisition proceedings were not finalized till 01.01.2014 as no award
was declared, the relevant date to determine the compensation would be
01.01.2014. Furthermore, the judgment of Hem Chandra (supra) was
subjected to Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7261 of 2025 and the
Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2025 dismissed the Special Leave
to Appeal holding that the decision given in Hem Chandra (supra) stating
that the award to be made taking the date of reference to be 01.01.2014
to be correct. Further reliance has been placed on M/s Bir Hotels Pvt.
2
Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and other in which relying upon Hem Chandra
(supra), the Court held that even though the acquisition would not lapse
under section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the date of reference for deciding
compensation would be 01.01.2014 on which the 2013 Act was
enforced.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that from the
instructions it is clear that the date of reference for declaring
compensation has been taken to be the date of section 28 notification i.e.
12.06.2004 and the amount so determined has been determined as per
the date of section 28 notification. It was contended that the said
determination of compensation is wrong as now in light of the decision
given in Hem Chandra (supra) and various other judgments holding that
the date of reference to be as 01.01.2014, the award has to be re-
determined and the date of reference would be 01.01.2014 and not
12.06.2004. Based on the above ratio, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the award to be
determined with reference dated to be 01.01.2014 along with all
admissible statutory benefits under the 2013 Act.
1 2024 (7) ADJ 254 (DB).
2 2024(10) ADJ 646 (DB)

4
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
6. Per contra, Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for
the Parishad contended that the rate of compensation has already been
determined taking the date of reference to be 12.06.2004 and financial
approval for the compensation has already been granted. The amount of
20,39,12,702/- had already been deposited with the SLAO and all that
₹
remained was declaration of the award which was to be done by the
SLAO. Any delay on the part of the SLAO in declaring the award cannot
be attributed to the Parishad as the Parishad has deposited the requisite
amount with the SLAO. The petitioners are entitled to get the
compensation once the award is declared by the SLAO. However,
regarding the applicability of the ratio as laid down in Hem Chandra
(supra), learned Counsel has fairly stated that the said ratio holds the
field as on date.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that
so far as the law is concerned, the same is well settled by the Division
Bench in Hem Chandra(supra) and approved by the Supreme Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7261/2025 which holds the field and
the grievance of the petitioners can be examined by the SLAO
expeditiously in accordance with law.
8. Heard the rival submissions and perused the records as well as the
instructions provided by the Learned counsel for the Parishad.
9. The bone of contention in the present dispute is regarding non-
declaration of the award of the lands acquired by notifications dated
12.06.2004 and 07.08.2010. The instructions reveal that the award is yet
to be made but the date of reference for determination of compensation
has been taken to be the date of section 28 notification i.e. 12.06.2004.
Even though the determined amount has been deposited by the Parishad
before the SLAO but the award has not been declared by the SLAO. As
to why the award has not been made is unclear from the instructions.

5
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
10. As on date, one thing is clear i.e. no award has been made till date
and the new Act i.e. the 2013 Act has come into effect which has
substantially increased the compensation to be awarded to the land-
losers. In the present case, the pertinent question to be decided is
whether the date of reference can be taken to be 12.06.2004 i.e. the date
of section 28 notification or the date of reference would be 01.01.2014
i.e. the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act in determination of the
compensation?
11. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to the decisions cited at
the Bar which have been perused by the Court:
(i) In Hem Chandra (supra), the Court while dealing the issue of
lapsing of the acquisition under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to an
acquisition made under the Adhiniyam held that there is no lapsing under
section 24(2) of the 2013 Act but the date of reference for determination
of compensation would be 01.01.2014 if the award had not been made
till the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act. The said judgment was
challenged by the Parishad before the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Court upheld the judgment given in Hem Chandra (supra) thus
effectively holding that the acquisition under the Adhiniyam would not
lapse under section 24(2) and any award made after 01.01.2014 would
have to be redetermined taking the date of reference to be 01.01.2014.
the relevant portion is reproduced below:
“26. In the instant case also, admittedly, the acquisition proceedings were
not finalized before 01.01.2014 as no award was declared by the Parishad
by that time. The award has been declared, as noted above, on 27.02.2024
and, therefore, in our opinion, the Competent Authority should have
determined compensation as per the provisions of the New
Act, 2013 by treating the reference date as 01.01.2014, i.e. the date of
enforcement of the New Act as emerges from combined reading of Chandra
Shekhar (supra) and EE, Gosikhurd Project (supra).
27. In Jainul Islam (supra), the Larger Bench of Supreme Court has held
that the beneficial provisions of the Amending Act, 1984 relating to
determination of compensation would apply to the acquisitions made under

6
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
the Adhiniyam to save it from arbitrariness and discrimination. As the Act,
1894, as amended from time to time, stands replaced by the New Act, 2013,
we are of the considered opinion that the affected persons would be entitled
to compensation as per the New Act, 2013, again to save Section 55 of the
Adhiniyam from being rendered unconstitutional on the touchstone of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
28. In the impugned award, reliance has been placed on Division Bench
decision of this Court in Atul Sharma (supra), which in view of the
judgment of Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar (supra) stands impliedly
overruled in so far as it holds that compensation for acquired land under the
Adhiniyam would be payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even in
respect of acquisition which could not be finalized until the enforcement of
the said Act, i.e. 01.01.2014. The judgment in Jainul Islam (supra), in our
opinion, has wrongly been interpreted in the impugned award and the said
judgment, when read with the recent pronouncement made in Chandra
Shekhar (supra), clarifies the legal position that the acquisitions made under
the Adhiniyam which could not be finalized until coming into force of New
Act, 2013, would be governed by the New Act in respect of determination
of compensation.
29. Accordingly, the impugned award is hereby quashed and the matter is
remitted back to the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Agra
(respondent no.3) for determining the compensation afresh in the light of
observations made herein above.”
(ii) In Bir Hotels (supra), even though Court dismissed the writ
petition yet it held that the date of reference would be 01.01.2014 for
determination of the compensation and kept the issue of compensation
open in favour of the petitioner. The relevant portion is reproduced
below :
“20. In view of the legal position noted above, we are of the opinion that
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….”
(iii) In Ishwari Prasad Sharma and another vs. State of U.P. and
3
others , a co-ordinate bench of this Court held that as the award for 4
biswa of land was not made before 01.01.2014, the same would have to
3 2026:AHC:121586-DB

7
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
be made in light of Hem Chandra (supra). The acquisition was done by
the Parishad in this case also. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
“8. In view of the facts and circumstances as it is admitted position that the
award has not been made qua 4 biswa land belonging to the petitioners, a
direction is issued to the SLAO to proceed expeditiously strictly in
accordance with law taking into account the aforesaid dictum Hem Chandra
(supra). The admissible amount must be released in favour of the petitioners
within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this
order.”
4
(iv) In Jainex Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others; , a
Coordinate bench of this Court quashed the award and directed that the
award be recomputed afresh keeping in mind the law as laid down in
Hem Chandra (supra). The relevant portion is reproduced below:
“ 7. The award dated 8.2.2024 is quashed to the extent it relates to the land
of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 2555 (measuring 0.9420 hectares),
Khasra No. 2556 (measuring 2.4840 hectares) and Khasra No. 2557
(measuring 0.6550 hectares), situated in Village Mandola, Pargana and
Tehsil Looni, District Ghaziabad. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed
to make a fresh award in light of the law laid down in Hem Chandra
(supra)”
12. An analysis of the above judgments makes it clear that in case an
award is not made for notifications which were issued under the
Adhiniyam when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the 1894 Act” for
brevity) was in application, no lapsing under the 2013 Act would take
place. However, because of repeal of the 1894 Act, the award can no
longer be made by utilizing the provisions of the 1894 Act. In such cases
where the award has not been made till date or where the award was
declared after the date of enforcement of 2013 Act i.e. 01.01.2014, the
award will have to determined/ redetermined taking the date of reference
for compensation to be 01.01.2014 along with all other statutory addons
granted under the 2013 Act.
13. As the ratio of Hem Chandra (supra) still hold the field as on date,
therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that even though the
acquisition would not lapse but the petitioners shall be entitled to
4 2024:AHC:198520-DB

8
[Writ C No. 9903 of 2023]
compensation to be determined taking the date of reference to be as
01.01.2014. The compensation as determined by taking the date of
reference to be 12.06.2004 is not in accordance with the law laid down
in Hem Chandra (Supra). The compensation shall have to be re-
determined and award accordingly declared by treating the date of
reference to be 01.01.2014 along with all other statutory addons that are
applicable on the compensation so determined. It is perhaps because of
this conundrum, though unjustified on his part, that the award has not yet
been declared by the SLAO.
14. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the state respondents to
redetermine the amount of compensation regarding plot no. 59, 60/1 and
60/2 ad-measuring 18226 sq. mtrs, 13770 sq. mtrs and 13771 sq. mtrs
respectively in village Mavi Khurd in light of the above discussion and
the aforesaid dictum of Hem Chandra(supra). The said determination
shall be made within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order. The admissible amount shall
be distributed further within a period of 2 months from the date of
quantification of the compensation.
15. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition accordingly stands
disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)
November 3, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad