### Post-Commencement Awards Under 1894 Act Require Compensation Redetermination Under LARR Act, 2013 Summary: The High Court of Kerala held that where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but no award was passed prior to January 1, 2014, compensation must be determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as per Section 24(1)(a). The Court further ruled that sale deeds executed by owners after surrendering physical possession to the State are *void ab initio*, as the owners are legally divested of the capacity to alienate the property once it vests in the State. Consequently, negotiated agreements (Form 10(a)) cannot be used to bypass the statutory mandate for fair compensation under the 2013 Act. Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals: * Section 24(1)(a) Mandate: If the award process is pending as of 01.01.2014, all provisions of the 2013 Act regarding compensation (including 100% solatium) apply regardless of when the notification was issued. * Legal Incapacity post-Vesting: Once possession is surrendered, the owner’s proprietary interest converts solely into a right to receive compensation; any subsequent sale deed execution is non-est in law. * Negotiated Purchase vs. Compulsory Acquisition: While the State may purchase land via negotiation, it cannot use "agreed prices" to circumvent the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act if the award was not finalized before the Act's commencement.

The petitioners, two private limited companies, owned 2.232 acres of land in Ernakulam, which were subject to acquisition for the Atlantis Railway Overbridge via Section 4(1) notification on 14.08.2012 and Section 6(1) declaration on 06.01.2013 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Although physical possession was surrendered on 29.06.2013, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) commenced on 01.01.2014 while several awards were still pending.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed awards between 2015 and 2016 under the repealed 1894 Act.

To release the remaining 50% compensation, the respondents allegedly coerced the petitioners into executing sale deeds (Exts. P38 & P39) in 2018 in favor of the Kochi Corporation.

The petitioners challenged these awards and sale deeds, seeking redetermination of compensation under the LARR Act, 2013.

1. Whether the awards passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after 01.01.2014, are legally sustainable in view of the transitional provisions of Section 24 of the LARR Act, 2013.

2. Whether mortgaged properties can be validly transferred through a negotiated Form 10(a) agreement under Section 11(2) of the 1894 Act without involving the mortgagee.

3. Whether the sale deeds executed on 07.06.2018 are legally valid, considering possession was surrendered in 2013.

4. Whether the actions of the respondents constitute a "fraud on the power of eminent domain".

Section 24(1)(a) of the LARR Act, 2013, which mandates that where acquisition process was initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 was made prior to 01.01.2014, compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act.

Supreme Court’s interpretation in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which established that proceedings do not lapse in such cases but require the 2013 Act's compensation standards, including 100% solatium.

Rule 12(5) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990, regarding the execution of agreements with "persons interested".

The general principles of the Transfer of Property Act regarding the capacity to transfer title after the vesting of land in the State.

The Court found that since the awards (Exhibits P15 to P24) were passed between June 2015 and November 2016, they post-dated the commencement of the LARR Act, 2013. Consequently, under Section 24(1)(a), the respondents were legally bound to determine compensation using the 2013 Act's criteria.

Regarding the 2018 sale deeds (Exts. P38 & P39), the Court reasoned that once physical possession was surrendered in June 2013, proprietary rights transformed into a right to receive compensation. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioners lacked the legal capacity to alienate or "sell" the land in 2018 because the land had already vested in the State free of encumbrances upon possession.

The Court rejected the "fraud on eminent domain" plea, noting the acquisition served a genuine public purpose—a railway overbridge—and procedural delays did not equate to mala fide intent or private enrichment.

The Court set aside Exhibits P13 to P24 and P38 to P39 and directed the respondents to redetermine compensation under the LARR Act, 2013, and disburse the balance amount (after deducting previous payments) within three months. The plea regarding "fraud on power of eminent domain" was discarded.