Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1462 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 14820 of 2017)
Hori Lal ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 09.03.2017 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.44731 of
2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.02.05
17:38:34 IST
Reason:
1
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein.
3. A few relevant facts need mention to appreciate
the short controversy involved in this appeal.
4. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner
whereas the respondents herein were the respondents
in the writ petition filed before the High Court out of
which this appeal arises.
5. In exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short called “the Act 1894”), the State of UP
(respondent No.1 herein) issued a notification on
30.10.2002 (Annexure P1) for acquisition of lands as
detailed in the schedule to the notification.
6. The acquisition was for the public purpose,
namely, construction of Varanasi ByePass (Ring Road)
in District Varanasi. The State, however, invoked the
urgency clause under Section 17 and, therefore,
2
dispensed with the inquiry as provided in Section 5A
of the Act, 1894. This was followed by a declaration
made under Section 6 on 29.11.2003. The appellant's
land was acquired in these acquisition proceedings.
7. "The Act, 1894" was repealed on 01.01.2014 and
was replaced by another Act called “the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013” (for short
called “the Act, 2013”). The Act 2013 came into force
on 01.01.2014.
8. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, passed an
award on 30.06.2016 (Annexure P4), i.e., after the
repeal of the Act, 1894 in relation to the
aforementioned lands by determining the
compensation payable to the landowner (appellant
herein) accordingly.
9. The appellant (writ petitioner) thereupon felt
aggrieved by the entire acquisition proceedings
3
including passing of the award dated 30.06.2016 and
filed the writ petition in the Allahabad High Court
challenging therein the validity and legality of the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894
dated 30.10.2002 as also the award dated 30.06.2016.
10. The main challenge of the appellant to the
acquisition proceedings was that the entire acquisition
proceedings initiated by the respondentState on the
strength of notification issued on 30.10.2002 under
Section 4 of the Act, 1894 which eventually led to
passing of the award on 30.06.2016, stood lapsed
consequent upon the repeal of the Act, 1894.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that during the
hearing before the High Court, the writ petitioner
(appellant herein) expressly gave up his challenge to
the acquisition proceedings and confined his challenge
only to the manner in which the determination of the
4
compensation was done by the Land Acquisition
Officer and, in consequence, to its quantum.
12. The State, in the counter affidavit filed before the
High Court, placed reliance on the order of the
Central Government issued under Section 113 of the
Act, 2013 and contended that the compensation
payable to the appellant would be determined on the
basis of market value as it was prevalent on
01.01.2014. .
13. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the
writ petition. The High Court held that in view of the
stand taken by the State in this case, that the
compensation payable to the appellant would be
determined on the basis of market value of the land in
question as it was prevalent on 01.01.2014, nothing
survives for deciding any question. The appellant was,
however, granted liberty to claim reference to the
competent authority for determination of the
5
compensation under the Act, 2013 in accordance with
law.
14. It is against this order of the High Court, the writ
petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by
way of special leave in this Court.
15. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court
was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition
and, if so, whether the reasoning of the High Court is
legal, just and proper.
16. Heard Mr. Pallav Sisodia, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General for the respondents.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in this appeal.
18. As mentioned above, the High Court held that in
the light of the stand taken by the State contending in
6
their counter that the appropriate date for determining
the market value of the appellant's acquired land
would be the date, which is declared by the Central
Government, i.e., “ 01.01.2014 ” and, therefore, the
State would determine the compensation payable to
the appellant accordingly. This order is not under
challenge in these proceedings.
19. Indeed, once the State took a defense in this case
that the compensation in the case of the appellant
would be determined keeping in view 01.01.2014 to be
the date as the basis, the appellant should feel
satisfied with this stand. The apparent reason is that
though the acquisition was made under the old Act in
2002 yet the appellant was held entitled to get
compensation under the New Act, 2013 by taking
01.01.2014 as the base date for determination of the
compensation.
7
20. We, therefore, find no good ground to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
when he contended that the date for determining the
compensation should be the date on which the Land
Acquisition Officer passed the award. This argument
does not have any basis and is, therefore, not
acceptable for the simple reason that such date is not
provided either in the old Act, 1894 or in the Act,
2013.
21. Indeed, how the compensation is required to be
determined and with reference to what date, is
provided under the Act and admittedly the date
suggested by the learned counsel is not the date
prescribed either in the old Act or the new Act. This
submission has, therefore, no merit and deserves to be
rejected. It is accordingly rejected.
8
22. We, therefore, find no good ground to take a
different view than what was taken by the High Court
in the impugned order.
23. As mentioned above, since the challenge to the
acquisition proceedings was expressly given up by the
appellant (writ petitioner) in the High Court, the High
Court rightly did not decide this question. We also
need not examine this question in the present appeal.
24. However, before parting, we consider it apposite
to mention that the appellant would be entitled to get
the compensation redetermined by the competent
authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed
under the Act, 2013 as per the liberty granted by the
High Court in the impugned order.
9
25. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi;
February 05, 2019.
10