01Facts
The petitioner purchased 0.5020 hectares of land in Village Aahmamau, Lucknow, via a sale deed dated 05.02.2007
¶ 3On 27.12.2013, the State issued a notification for land acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
¶ 3However, this notification was published in newspapers on 02.01.2014 and 03.01.2014, and in the Official Gazette on 04.01.2014
¶ 3A Section 6 declaration followed on 23.01.2015, and an award was declared in 2016 (amended in 2022)
¶ 3The petitioner challenged the acquisition on the grounds that the 1894 Act stood repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act"), which came into force on 01.01.2014
¶ 5-6The petitioner remained in physical possession, and compensation had not been paid
¶ 8, 5002Issues
i.1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894 had legally "initiated" prior to the repeal of the Act on 01.01.2014 when the notification was dated 27.12.2013 but published thereafter.
¶ 5, 17ii.2. Whether the acquisition proceedings held under a repealed enactment are valid or void ab initio.
¶ 5, 48iii.3. Whether the court should quash the proceedings or balance equities given the public purpose (construction of a 45-meter road).
¶ 5403Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 114 of the 2013 Act, which repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, effective 01.01.2014
¶ 11Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regarding the effect of repeal on accrued rights
¶ 12, 44Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) regarding Section 24 of the 2013 Act
¶ 16Deepak Aggarwal v. HSIIDC (2023) and Raja Ram Jaiswal (1985), which established that acquisition "initiates" only upon the publication of the Section 4(1) notification in the Official Gazette and locality, not the mere signing of a file
¶ 25, 31, 34-35Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 1Section 24Section 114
General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 6
Indian Forest Act, 1927 Section 4
Customs Act,1962 Section 25
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that "initiation" of acquisition is not a private administrative decision but a formal act of publication. Since the Section 4(1) notification was published in the Gazette on 04.01.2014—three days after the 1894 Act was repealed—the proceedings never legally commenced under the old law
¶ 42, 49The Court dismissed the State's argument that the notification date (27.12.2013) was controlling, holding that a notification is a "paper decision" until it is made public
¶ 35Consequently, the saving clauses in Section 24 of the 2013 Act or Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not apply because there were no "pending" proceedings to save on 01.01.2014
¶ 45-47The entire exercise was deemed a nullity as it was conducted under a non-existent statute
¶ 4905Holding
The Court held that the acquisition was fundamentally flawed and void ab initio because it was initiated under a repealed Act
¶ 48-49The Court ordered the respondents to re-determine and pay compensation to the petitioner under the 2013 Act using current market rates as of the date of the judgment (July 3, 2026), rather than 2014 rates
¶ 54The Court directed that possession shall not be taken until the revised compensation is paid, with the entire process to be completed within six months. Writ petition disposed of
¶ 54-55Original Court PDF
Lohia Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Singnatory Shri Rajesh Kumar ShrivastavavsState Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Civil Sectt Lko. And 4 Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
