# Pyare Lal & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1997
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 31120 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pyare-lal-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-opp-parties-51603
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-

Land Acquisition Act,1894-Sections 4 r/w
17-Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013Section
24(1)(a)-The
land
acquisition
process was initiated in 2005 under the
old Act, with possession taken in 2007-the
new act came into force in the year 2014petiitioners
claimed
that
the
compensation
should
be
determined
based on the new Act-Section 24 of the
2013 Act provides that if no award was
made before the new Act came into effect,
compensation must follow the provisions
of the new Act-The court directed the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the compensation using the
2014 market value within 12 weeks.(Para
1 to 17)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1997
District
Magistrate,
Lakhimpur
Kheri as well as order dated 03.11.2015
passed by the appellate authority are hereby
quashed..
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1997
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ-C No. 31120 of 2019
With
Writ C No. 33836 of 2019

Pyare Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shiv Kant Mishra, Sri Krishna Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Ms. Suman Jaiswal

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-

Land Acquisition Act,1894-Sections 4 r/w
17-Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013Section
24(1)(a)-The
land
acquisition
process was initiated in 2005 under the
old Act, with possession taken in 2007-the
new act came into force in the year 2014petiitioners
claimed
that
the
compensation
should
be
determined
based on the new Act-Section 24 of the
2013 Act provides that if no award was
made before the new Act came into effect,
compensation must follow the provisions
of the new Act-The court directed the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the compensation using the
2014 market value within 12 weeks.(Para
1 to 17)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Hori Lal Vs St. of U.P. & 3 Ors Writ-C No.
44731 of 2016

2. Prahlad Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors WritC No. 15804 o 2016

3. Krishna Autar & 5 Ors Vs St. of U.P. & ors
Writ-C No. 44720 of 2016

4. Ishan International Edu. Socy Thru' Dir Vs St.
of U.P. & ors Writ-C No. 60276 of 2015

5. Smt Sabita Sharma & 2 Ors Vs St. of U.P. &
ors Writ-C No. 30088 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J., & Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Suman
Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 and 5 in Writ-C No.31120 of 2019
and Shri Gautam Kumar, learned counsel
for respondent nos.1 and 5 in Writ-C
No.33836 of 2019 and Shri Rajiv Gupta,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4.

2. The petitioners in both the writ
petitions have assailed the award dated
26.12.2015
passed
by
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer, Joint Organization,
Bareilly, one of the respondents. The award
has been purportedly made under the
saving clause embodied in Section 24(1)(a)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short hereinafter referred to as 'the new
Act, 2013').
1998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. The acquisition was initiated
under
the
provisions
of
the
Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the old Act). The notification under
Section 4 read with Section 17 of the old
Act was issued on 17.10.2005 followed by
notification
under
Section
6
dated
16.10.2006. Since, the provisions of
Section 17(4) and 17(1) were invoked at
the time of issuance of notifications under
Sections 4 and 6 of the old Act respectively,
therefore, the State-respondents proceeded
to take possession of the acquired land on
18.01.2007, even before making the award.
Before award could be made, the new Act,
2013 was enforced with effect from
01.01.2014.

4. Section 24 of the new Act, 2013,
which is relevant for the controversy
involved in the instant petition, is 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,-
(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.
(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), in case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),
where an award under the said section 11
has been made five years or more prior to
the commencement of this Act but the
physical possession of the land has not
been taken or the compensation has not
been paid the said proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate
Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate
the proceedings of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of
this Act:

Provided that where an award has
been made and compensation in respect of
a majority of land holdings has not been
deposited
in
the
account
of
the
beneficiaries,
then,
all
beneficiaries
specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Act."

5. Thus, under Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 24 where no award
under Section 11 of the old Act has been
made, then all provisions of the new Act,
2013
relating
to
determination
of
compensation have been made applicable.
However, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
while
making
award
on
26.12.2015, admittedly, after enforcement
of the new Act, 2013, determined the
compensation with reference to the date of
notification under Section 4 of the old Act
i.e., 17.10.2005. He took into consideration
the sale deeds executed three years prior to
the notification under Section 4 and placing
reliance on a sale deed dated 20.06.2005
executed by Nanu Ram, Moti Ram,
Chatarni Lal, Hori Lal sons of Bhajan Lal
in favour of Om Wati wife of Shyam Bihari
in respect of Gata no.222/0.061 hectare at
the rate of 60,000/hectare determined the
compensation.
3 All. Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1999
6. Learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that in view of
express language of sub-section (1) of
Section 24 read with Central Government
Notification
dated
26.10.2015,
the
reference
date
for
determining
the
compensation would be 1st of January,
2014 and not the date of notification under
Section 4 of the old Act. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on Division
Bench judgements of this Court in Writ-C
No.44731 of 2016 (Hori Lal vs. State of
U.P. and 3 Others), Writ-C No.15804 of
2016 (Prahlad Singh and 6 Others vs.
State of U.P. and 2 Others), Writ-C
No.44720 of 2016 (Krishna Autar and 5
Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others),
Writ-C
No.60276
of
2015
(Ishan
International Educational Society Thru'
Director vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)
and in Writ-C No.30088 of 2022 (Smt.
Sabita Sharma and 2 Others vs. State of
U.P. and 2 Others) decided on 07.04.2023.

7. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Central
Government tried to contend that the award
impugned
rightly
determines
the
compensation with reference to the date
under Section 4 of the old Act. It is urged
that the compensation amount under the
impugned
award
has
already
been
deposited
with
the
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer and, now, there is no
occasion to interfere with the same.

8. Shri Rajiv Gupta, learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents adopts
the same line of argument.

9. Thus, the main issue for
consideration is the date in relation to
which the value of the acquired land was to
be determined while making award under
the saving clause embodied in Section
24(1)(a) of the new Act, 2013.

10. In Smt. Sabita Sharma
(supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
after examining various earlier Division
Bench judgements of this Court and most
of which were upheld with the dismissal of
special leave petitions filed before the
Supreme Court and in one case, namely,
Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others
with dismissal of Civil Appeal No.1462 of
2019, held that the relevant date would be
01.01.2014 i.e., the date of commencement
of the new Act, 2013. The judgement takes
notice of Section 113 of the new Act, 2013,
which empowers the Central Government
to make such provisions or give such
directions
not
inconsistent
with
the
provisions of the new Act, 2013, as may
appear to it to be necessary or expedient for
removal of the difficulty. It has been held
that in exercise of said power, the Central
Government
had
issued
a
D.O.
No.13013/01/2014-LRD(Pt)
dated
26.10.2015 wherein the issue at hand was
specifically answered in reference to a
query raised by the Government of
Maharashtra. The relevant part of the said
D.O. is extracted below:

S.
N
o.
Issues raised
by
the
Government
of
Maharashtra
Opinion
of
the
DoLR
1.
While
determining
the amount of
compensation
under Section
27
of
the
RFCTLAR&R
Act, 2013 of
Hon'ble
Under Section 26 of
the
RFCTLAR&R
Act, 2013 market
value of land is
determined
while
under section 27,
value of all assets
attached to the land
is
added
to
the
2000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme
Court's orders
are
followed
or
cost
of
assets have to
be separately
computed
in
addition
to
cost of land?
market
value
to
determine
the
amount
of
compensation.
Thus,
it
is
not
contradictory to the
Supreme
Court's
orders quoted in the
letter
of
Maharashtra
Government.
2.
Under Section
24(1),
the
reference date
for calculating
12%
interest
should be date
of preliminary
notification
under
Land
Acquisition
Act, 1894.
Under
section
24(1), the reference
date for calculating
12% interest should
be
date
of
preliminary
notification
under
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894.
Department of Land
Resources agrees to
this, as there is no
other reference date,
that can be treated
as equivalent to date
of SIA notification
under
the
RFCTLAR&R Act,
2013.
3.
For
calculation of
market value,
under Section
24(1)(a),
reference date
should
be
01.01.2014
(commenceme
nt
of
RFCTLAR&R
Act, 2013) or
date of issuing
preliminary
notification
The reference date
for calculation of
market value, under
Section
24(1)(a)
should
be
01.01.2014
(commencement of
RFCTLAR&R Act,
2013),
as
the
Section reads "in
any case of land
acquisition
proceedings
initiated under the
Land
Acquisition
under
Land
Acquisition
Act, 1894?
Act, 1894, 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.
Under
section 26 reference
date
is
date
of
preliminary
notification,
but
section
24
is
a
special
case
of
application of the
Act in retrospective
cases, and a later
date
of
determination
of
market
value
is
suggested
(i.e.,
01.01.2014) with a
view to ensure that
the
land
owners/farmers/affe
cted
families
get
enhanced
compensation under
the provisions of the
RFCTLAR&R Act,
2013
(as
also
recommended
by
Standing
Committee in its
31st report).

11. The Division Bench, thereafter,
concluded as follows:

"From a perusal of the D.O. letter
dated 26th October, 2015, issued by the
concerned
Ministry
of
the
Central
Government forwarded to the Principal
3 All. Pyare Lal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
2001
Secretary of the State of U.P., for
information and necessary action, it is
evident that the said direction was made in
order to remove difficulty arose in giving
effect to the provisions of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013, in the matter of calculation of
market value under Section 24(1)(a), in the
land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Act, 1894. The said directions issued by
the Central Government being in exercise
of the power under Section 113 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 have statutory force
and
are
binding
on
all
the
State
Government being in view of the power
conferred on the Central Government to
make
such
provision
or
give
such
directions which are not inconsistent with
the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, for removal of any difficulty arising
in giving effect to the provisions of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013."

12. It is noteworthy that when same
view was taken by an earlier Division
Bench in Hori Lal (supra), the matter
travelled to Supreme Court and the Civil
Appeal No.1462 of 2019 (Hori Lal vs.
State of U.P. and Others) was dismissed
by the Supreme Court repelling the
contention that the relevant date would be
the date on which the award was made. The
view taken by the Division Bench of this
Court that relevant date would be 1st of
January, 2014 was thereby upheld. The
relevant extract from the said judgement of
the Supreme Court is as follows:

"20. We, therefore, find no good
ground to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant when he
contended that the date for determining the
compensation should be the date on which
the Land Acquisition Officer passed the
award. This argument does not have any
basis and is, therefore, not acceptable for
the simple reason that such date is not
provided either in the old Act, 1894 or in
the Act, 2013.

21. Indeed, how the compensation
is required to be determined and with
reference to what date, is provided under
the Act and admittedly the date suggested
by the learned counsel is not the date
prescribed either in the old Act or the new
Act. This submission has, therefore, no
merit and deserves to be rejected. It is
accordingly rejected.

22. We, therefore, find no good
ground to take a different view than what
was taken by the High Court in the
impugned order"

13. In view of the above discussion,
we are of the opinion that the issue is no
more res integra. The relevant date for
determining the compensation in respect of
acquisition initiated under the old Act but
where award could not be made by the time
the new Act, 2013 came into force, would
be 1st of January, 2014 i.e., the date of
commencement of the new Act, 2013.

14. Concededly, in the instant case,
the market value has been determined by
taking into consideration the exemplar sale
deed of the year of issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the old Act, which is
contrary to the legislative intent and the law
laid down in series of Division Bench
judgements of this Court referred to above.

15. As a result, the impugned
award is hereby quashed. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer is directed to pass fresh
award treating the relevant date with
reference to which market value is to be
determined as 01.01.2014, the date of
commencement of the new Act, 2013.
2002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of communication of the
instant order.

17. In the result, the writ petitions
are allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 2002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2024 &
13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 31515 of 2023

Aidal Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Om Prakash Rai, Sri Ashish Rai

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Motor
Vehicle
Act,1988Section 166-In the present case, the
claimants lost their son in the year 2015the application was filed for release of the
money so that the petitioner's daughter
could get married-Proof of this fact was
also filed before the tribunal but the
tribunal has failed to understand the
urgency in the matter-As per law laid
down by the Apex Court it is clear that the
guidelines
were
issued
to
keep
the
amount in a Fixed Deposit for aa period of
time only in the case of minors, illiterate
and widow claimants-The tribunal has
taken a rigid stand and has mechanically
passed the order without understanding
and without appreciating the distinction
drawn
by
the
supreme
court-The
claimants are now aged about 57 years
having responsibility of two daughters
and one son-Hence there is no reason to
not
allow
the
application
of
the
petitioners.(Para 1 to 24)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. G.M. KRSRTC Vs Sushamma Thomas & ors.
(1994)1 TAC 323

2. Zainba Vs M.A.C.T H (1999) ACC 567

3. Agnihotri Vs M.A.C.T/ ADJ,Agra & ors. (2005)
LawSuit (All) 2165

4. Padma & ors. Vs R. Venugopal & ors. (2012)
3 SCC 378

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the orders dated 05.06.2023
passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bulandshahar in Misc. Case No. 545 of
2023 & 555 of 2023 directing for part
release of the compensation awarded in
claim petition i.e. Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 468 of 2015 and directing the
remaining amount to be invested in a Fixed
Deposit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
one Ganpat Singh son of Aidal Singh died
in a road accident on 19.08.2015 at about
08:00P.M. involving fortuner car No. UP81
CB 7686. Claim petition No. 468 of 2015
was filed by the claimants i.e. parents of
the deceased Ganpat Singh along with two
unmarried sisters and one brother of the
deceased under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act. The aforesaid claim petition