# Chandrabhan Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 835
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18397 of 2018
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, A.C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrabhan-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51675
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Land
Acquisition
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
-
Sections
24(1)(a) & 64 - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Sections 11 & 17 - Applicability of
2013 Act for Compensation - Award made
after 01.01.2014 - Dispute Reference to
Authority

The petitioner challenged the Collector's order
dated 08.07.2018, rejecting the application for
referring a dispute over enhanced compensation
to the Authority under Section 64 of the 2013
Act, and the award dated 26.12.2014. The land
was acquired under the 1894 Act, with
possession taken on 06.06.2012 and the award
made on 26.12.2014, after the 2013 Act came
into force. Held: As per Section 24(1)(a) of the
2013 Act, if no award was made under Section
11 of the 1894 Act before 01.01.2014, the 2013
Act's
compensation
provisions
apply,
irrespective of possession date. The Collector's
rejection, based on possession under the 1894
Act, was erroneous. The prior writ court's order
allowing reference under Section 64 had
attained finality. The deposit of 80% estimated
compensation under Section 17(3A) of the 1894
Act did not affect the petitioner's right to seek
reference. The impugned order was quashed,
and the Collector was directed to refer the
dispute to the Authority within three weeks for
expeditious adjudication.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Chandrabhan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
835
of 28 years in initiating the proceeding for
mutation on the basis of sale deed creates
doubt about the document in question as
held by this court in the case reported in
2015 (129) RD 495 Shardul Ranjan and
others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation
and others. Court of Tehsildar as sell as
Civil Court has considered the case set up
by Nagar Palika Parisahd on the basis of
alleged sale deed which requires no further
interference by this Court.

15. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case the impugned
orders
dated
30.10.2006
passed
by
respondent
no.1/Board
of
Revenue,
30.9.1993
paased
by
Additional
Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut
and
7.7.1993
passed
by
respondent
no.5/Tehsildar Sadar, Saharanpur are liable
to be set aside and the same are hereby set
aside.

16. The writ petition stands allowed.

17. The mutation order dated
27.8.1990 passed by Tehsildar in favour of
petitioners is hereby affirmed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 835
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,
A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 18397 of 2018

Chandrabhan Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Nath Sharma, Sri Indresh
Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Land
Acquisition
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
-
Sections
24(1)(a) & 64 - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Sections 11 & 17 - Applicability of
2013 Act for Compensation - Award made
after 01.01.2014 - Dispute Reference to
Authority

The petitioner challenged the Collector's order
dated 08.07.2018, rejecting the application for
referring a dispute over enhanced compensation
to the Authority under Section 64 of the 2013
Act, and the award dated 26.12.2014. The land
was acquired under the 1894 Act, with
possession taken on 06.06.2012 and the award
made on 26.12.2014, after the 2013 Act came
into force. Held: As per Section 24(1)(a) of the
2013 Act, if no award was made under Section
11 of the 1894 Act before 01.01.2014, the 2013
Act's
compensation
provisions
apply,
irrespective of possession date. The Collector's
rejection, based on possession under the 1894
Act, was erroneous. The prior writ court's order
allowing reference under Section 64 had
attained finality. The deposit of 80% estimated
compensation under Section 17(3A) of the 1894
Act did not affect the petitioner's right to seek
reference. The impugned order was quashed,
and the Collector was directed to refer the
dispute to the Authority within three weeks for
expeditious adjudication.

Case Law Cited:
1. Sabita Sharma Vs St. of U.P., 2023 (3) AWC
3062

2. Chandrabhan Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & Ors.,
(2024) 3 ILRA, Writ C No. 18397 of 2018,
decided on 25.01.2024 (All. HC, Lucknow
Bench)

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, A.C.J.
&
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The instant petition is directed
against the order dated 08.07.2018 passed
by respondent No. 2, i.e., Collector/District
Magistate, Sant Kabir Nagar rejecting the
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
15.09.2017 for referring the dispute relating
to enhancement of compensation to the
Authority in terms of Section 64 of the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The petitioner has also challenged the
award of the Collector dated 26.12.2014.

2. The facts which are not in dispute
are that the subject land of the petitioner
bearing plot No. 530 situated at VillageKhalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar was
acquired under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act of 1894"). The possession of
the land was taken on 06.06.2012 followed
by award dated 26.12.2014. The petitioner
challenged the award in Writ - C No. 7555
of 2016 on the ground that while making
the award, the principles contained in the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
2013") had not been followed. The said
contention was not accepted as the award
did make reference to the provisions of the
Act of 2013, however, it was left open to
the petitioner to seek reference under
Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The
petitioner,
therefore,
by
means
of
application dated 15.09.2017, applied for
the enhancement as per provisions of
Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The said
application has been rejected by the
impugned order.

3. Indisputably, after the filing of the
said application by the petitioner, a report
was submitted by A.D.M. Finance and
Revenue dated 16.12.2017 that at the
relevant time, the Authority was not in
existence, having not been constituted as
per provisions of the Act. Therefore, it
would not be possible to make the
reference. It is evident from the said report
that the State-respondents, at the relevant
time, had no objection in referring the
dispute to the Authority, but for the fact that
it had not been constituted by that time.

4. However, by the impugned order,
the District Magistrate has rejected the
application observing that possession of the
subject land was taken on 06.06.2012 and
award was made on 26.12.2014. As
possession was taken under the Act of 1894
and when the Act of 2013 was not
applicable, therefore, the application for
redetermining the compensation on the
basis of new Act of 2013 is without any
merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order suffers
from manifest error of law inasmuch as the
provisions of the Act of 2013 were fully
applicable regard being had to the fact that
no award was made until 01.01.2014. He
further submits that even as per the
observations made by this Court while
deciding the previous writ petition of the
petitioner, the respondents were under
obligation to refer the dispute to the
Authority as per Section 64 of the Act of
2013. It is also urged that the Collector
wrongly treated the application filed by the
petitioner as an application to redetermine
the compensation, although, it was for
making reference to the Authority as per
provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 2013.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on a Division Bench
3 All. Chandrabhan Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
837
judgment of this Court in Sabita Sharma
vs. State of U.P., 2023 (3) AWC 3062,
wherein it is held that even in case of
acquisition under the Act of 1894, in case
award has not been made under Section 11
of the Act of 2013, then all the provisions
of the Act of 2013 relating to determination
of
the
compensation
would
become
applicable. He submits that it is also the
mandate of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of
2013.

7.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents submits that for the acquisition
in question, the estimated amount of
compensation was duly deposited by the
Government much before the award was
made. He submits that a notice was given
to the petitioner to withdraw the said
amount and all other affected persons,
therefore, the provisions of the new Act
would not apply.

8. Section 24(1) of the new Act
stipulates as follows:

"24. Land acquisition process
under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed
to have lapsed in certain cases. - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), -

(a) where no award under Section
11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has
been made, then, all provisions of this Act
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said
Section 11 has been made, then such
proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act,
as if the said Act has not been repealed."

9. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of
Section 24 clearly mandates that where no
award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894
has been made, then, all provisions of the
new Act of 2013 relating to determination
of
compensation
would
apply.
The
applicability of the said provision is not
dependent upon the fact as to whether
possession has been taken or not under the
provisions of the old Act. The new Act
became effective from 01.01.2014. In the
instant case, the award having been made
on 26.12.2014, i.e., after the new Act of
2013 came into force, the provisions of
Section 24(1)(a) would be applicable and
the respondents were to make the award as
per the principles relating to award of
compensation contained in the Act of 2013.

10. Additionally, while disposing of
the previous writ petition of the petitioner,
this Court permitted the petitioner to seek
reference under Section 64 of the Act of
2013. The previous order of the Writ Court
has attained finality and, therefore, it is not
open to the State respondents to contend
that the reference under Section 64 of the
Act of 2013 is not maintainable.

11. As far as the contention of learned
State counsel that 80% of the estimated
amount of compensation was deposited by
the Government and the affected persons
were given notices to withdraw the said
amount, the same, in our opinion, will be of
no consequence in so far as the right of the
petitioner to seek reference is concerned. In
the instant case, the respondents while
issuing notification under Section 6 of the
Act also invoked the power under Section
17 (1) of the Act, 1984 entitling them to
take possession even before award is made.
It is in view thereof that possession was
taken on 6.6.2012 even before making of
the award. In such an eventuality, Section
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17 (3A) makes it imperative that 80% of
the estimated amount of compensation is
tendered to the persons interested. The said
amount is taken into account while
determining the amount of compensation
required to be tendered under Section 31 in
pursuance of the award made under Section
11 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, even if
the State had deposited/tendered 80% of
the estimated amount of compensation as
per provisions of old Act, it would have no
effect on the right of the petitioner to seek
reference under Section 64 of the Act of
2013.

12. Consequently, the impugned order
declining to refer the application of the
petitioner relating to enhancement of
compensation to the Authority on the
ground that possession had been taken
under the old Act is not sustainable and is
hereby
quashed.
The
Collector,
i.e.,
respondent No. 2 is directed to refer the
dispute to the Authority within three weeks
from the date of communication of the
instant order. The Authority will proceed to
decide the reference, in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible.

13. In the result, the petition stands
allowed to the extent indicated above.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 838
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA.J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 25244 of 2017

Ramesh Chandra Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Singh, Sri Aijaz Ahmad Khan, S.C.

Arbitration Law - - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Section 70 -
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Applicability of Arbitration Clause - NonMember
of
Cooperative
Society
-
Jurisdiction
of
Arbitrator
-
Wrongful
Application of Statutory Provision

The petitioner challenged the arbitrator's award
dated 06.02.2017, which held the arbitration
non-maintainable under Section 70 of the U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965,
as
the
petitioner was not a member of the cooperative
society. The dispute arose from an agreement
with an arbitration clause (Clause 36) between
the petitioner and the fourth respondent, a
cooperative society, and was referred to
arbitration following a prior court order in Writ C
No. 48497 of 2015. Held: Section 70 of the 1965
Act applies only to disputes involving members
or
cooperative
societies,
and
thus
was
inapplicable to the petitioner, a non-member.
The arbitration clause in the
agreement
mandated resolution under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, as it lacked any
stipulation tying it to the 1965 Act. The
arbitrator's
reliance
on
Section
70
was
erroneous, and the mention of a wrong
provision in the petitioner's application did not
bar the exercise of jurisdiction under the correct
law. The award was set aside, and the
Registrar, Fisheries Cooperative Societies, U.P.,
was directed to appoint a fresh arbitrator within
four weeks to resolve the dispute expeditiously
under the 1996 Act.
 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Aijaz Ahmad Khan, learned
counsel for the fourth respondent and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.