UP land-acquisition authority cannot execute its own compensation awards; district courts must enforce them, Allahabad High Court rules

The petitions concerned awards made by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA) under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

Sashastra Seema Bal, UPEIDA and the Lucknow Development Authority challenged LARRA’s authority to execute its awards after landowners sought enforcement of enhanced compensation awards.

Three landowners separately sought expedition of their execution proceedings before LARRA.

The petitions were heard together because they raised the same jurisdictional question.

Whether LARRA has power, authority or jurisdiction under the 2013 Act to execute its own award.

If LARRA lacks that power, whether its award, deemed to be a decree, may be executed by the competent District Court—and whether that court may adjudicate objections on the merits of the award.

Whether the State notification dated 4 August 2022 conferred on LARRA power to execute awards made under the 2013 Act.

Sections 51 and 64 of the 2013 Act establish LARRA to adjudicate specified land-acquisition disputes; Section 60(1) gives it enumerated civil-court powers, while Section 60(3) permits it to regulate its procedure but does not itself confer substantive execution powers.

Section 70(2) deems a LARRA award to be a decree and its reasons to be a judgment; the Court held that this gives the award decree status but does not, without more, confer execution jurisdiction on LARRA.

Section 63 bars civil-court jurisdiction over disputes assigned to the Collector or LARRA, but does not bar a District Court from enforcing a final award.

Sections 60(1)(g) and 109(2)(q) provide a route for the appropriate Government to prescribe additional powers by rules; no rule conferring execution power had been made.

The Court distinguished the 2013 Act from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which the full CPC applied to reference proceedings, and from statutes that expressly confer execution powers on tribunals.

It also applied the principles that statutory tribunals must act within powers conferred by their enabling legislation and that courts cannot supply an omitted power by interpretation.

The Court found that the 2013 Act confers adjudicatory powers on LARRA but neither expressly grants it execution jurisdiction nor incorporates the CPC’s execution provisions; the State had also made no rules granting that power.

LARRA could not derive execution authority from its power to regulate procedure, inherent powers, or the deemed-decree provision, because those provisions do not supply a separate substantive source of jurisdiction.

The 4 August 2022 notification was issued under Section 3(d) of the repealed 1894 Act and concerned pending matters under that Act; it did not empower LARRA to execute awards under the 2013 Act.

The Court nevertheless held that a final LARRA award could be enforced by the competent District Court, which would act only as the enforcement forum and could not revisit the award on its merits or entertain Section 47 CPC objections affecting the adjudication.

Section 63 did not bar that limited enforcement function.

A final LARRA award, deemed to be a decree, may be enforced by the District Court of Principal Original Civil Jurisdiction, but that court may not reopen the merits of the award, and Section 47 CPC does not apply to do so.

Section 63 does not prevent the District Court from undertaking that enforcement.

The petitions brought by SSB, UPEIDA and LDA were allowed, and LARRA’s execution orders were set aside; the landowners’ petitions seeking expedition of execution before LARRA were disposed of accordingly.