Compensation need not be recalculated under the 2013 Act where acquisition under the 1894 Act remains binding.

The Varanasi Development Authority initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for lands situated in villages including Karnadadi, Bairwan/Birwan Kaswar Sarkari, Milki Chak and Sarai Mohan, District Varanasi.

Notifications under Sections 4 and 6, read with Section 17(1), were issued in 2000–2001, and possession was taken and transferred to the Authority on 17 April 2003.

In 2011, compensation rates were agreed upon under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997.

Awards were subsequently made for substantial portions of the acquired land in 2012, while no award was initially made for the remaining land.

The acquisition proceedings had already been challenged in earlier litigation.

The challenge to the dispensation of the Section 5-A enquiry was rejected in 2002, and the challenge based on Section 11-A of the 1894 Act was rejected in 2008.

In a third round of litigation, the High Court’s judgment dated 31 May 2023 directed that, for the remaining land in respect of which neither an award had been made nor compensation paid, the State could either reconsider retention of the land or make an award in accordance with law, keeping in view Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh.

Pursuant to those directions, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed awards dated 10 January 2024 for the remaining land.

The petitioners challenged the awards, contending principally that the compensation ought to have been determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with the market value assessed as on 1 January 2014.

They also alleged non-compliance with the requirement of depositing 80% of estimated compensation before taking possession under Section 17(3-A) of the 1894 Act and asserted that the acquired land was being used for an altered public purpose.

Whether the awards dated 10 January 2024 were required to be made under the 2013 Act, with market value determined as on 1 January 2014, rather than under the 1894 Act and on the basis of the earlier awards dated 20 September 2012?

Whether the alleged failure to deposit 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession under Section 17(3-A) of the 1894 Act invalidated or caused the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 11-A?

Whether the award dated 10 January 2024 complied with the directions issued in the earlier judgment dated 31 May 2023 and the principles laid down in Delhi Airtech and Aligarh Development Authority?

Whether the petitioners could reopen the validity of the acquisition on the ground that the acquired land was being used for a purpose different from the original public purpose?

The Court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4, 6, 11-A, 11(2), 17(1) and 17(3-A), together with the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997.

Under Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2024 (17) SCC 610, failure to tender and pay 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession under Section 17(3-A) means that possession is not taken in accordance with law, vesting is not absolute, and Section 11-A may apply; where the 80% requirement is satisfied, Section 11-A does not operate to lapse the acquisition, although the landowner remains entitled to enforcement of the award and payment of compensation.

Delhi Airtech further directs that, in the applicable circumstances, market value and statutory benefits must be determined by reference to the legally relevant date and the governing acquisition framework.

The Court also relied on Aligarh Development Authority v. Megh Singh, 2016 (12) SCC 504, as directed by the earlier High Court judgment, and treated that judgment’s directions as binding in the present proceedings.

Grounds already rejected or available in earlier rounds of litigation could not be reopened in the present challenge.

The Court held that the present petitioners belonged to the second category identified in the judgment dated 31 May 2023—landowners in whose favour no award had previously been made and to whom compensation had not been paid.

The only operative direction was therefore to make a lawful award consistent with Delhi Airtech and Aligarh Development Authority.

The earlier litigation had already conclusively rejected the challenge based on non-payment or non-deposit of 80% compensation and had upheld the acquisition against a Section 11-A challenge.

Since possession had been taken in 2003 and the Court had found that compensation had been deposited before 2012, the case fell within the principle that the acquisition did not lapse and that the landowners’ remedy was to enforce payment of compensation.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation by adopting the rate reflected in the earlier award dated 20 September 2012 and calculated the applicable statutory benefits thereafter.

The Court found this approach consistent with the directions of the earlier judgment and the principles in Delhi Airtech, rather than requiring application of the 2013 Act or valuation as on 1 January 2014.

The allegation concerning altered use of the land was also rejected because it was a ground available in the earlier litigation and the present proceedings were confined to examining whether the fresh award complied with the prior judicial directions.

It held that the 10 January 2024 awards were validly made under the applicable acquisition framework and in compliance with the directions issued in the judgment dated 31 May 2023.

The petitioners were not entitled to valuation under the 2013 Act as on 1 January 2014, and the acquisition could not be challenged afresh on the basis of alleged non-compliance with Section 17(3-A), Section 11-A, or change in public purpose.

Accordingly, Writ-C No. 18752 of 2024, Writ-C No. 19422 of 2024 and Writ-C No. 36353 of 2023 were dismissed, the awards dated 10 January 2024 were upheld, no further directions were issued in the connected possession and mutation petition, and there was no order as to costs.