A compensated acquisition under the 1894 Act does not entitle claimants to fresh compensation under the 2013 Act.

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners could claim compensation under the 2013 Act in respect of an acquisition for which an award had been passed in 2011 and compensation had been received.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act on the grounds advanced, and no relief could be granted.

It also directed

Both writ petitions were dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioners’ lands at Village Chitapali were acquired in 2010 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for an industry, and an award granting compensation was passed on 16 August 2011.

¶ 3–6

The petitioners received the awarded compensation.

¶ 3–6

They later challenged an order dated 26 July 2019, associated with acquisition for the East Rail Corridor project, and sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, along with employment and rehabilitation benefits.

¶ 3–6

The State and Railways opposed the claims, contending that the 2011 award predated the 2013 Act and had been paid.

¶ 3–6

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners could claim compensation under the 2013 Act in respect of an acquisition for which an award had been passed in 2011 and compensation had been received.

¶ 4–7

ii.Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief by way of quashing the 26 July 2019 order or obtaining employment, rehabilitation, damages, solatium, or interest.

¶ 1–3, 7

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which the acquisition proceedings had been initiated and the 16 August 2011 award passed, and the 2013 Act, under which the petitioners sought enhanced compensation and related benefits.

¶ 5–7

It held that the petitioners could not claim compensation under the 2013 Act merely because they challenged a subsequent order where the original award predated that Act and its compensation had been received.

¶ 5–7

04Reasoning

The Court treated the 2011 award as the operative award for the petitioners’ land acquisition and noted that the petitioners had accepted the compensation awarded under it.

¶ 4–7

Because the award preceded enactment of the 2013 Act, the Court concluded that the petitioners could not obtain compensation under that Act merely by challenging the 2019 order. It therefore found no basis to grant the reliefs sought.

¶ 4–7