# Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1191
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-07
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 30088 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sabita-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50159
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 (1)
(a) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section
11
-
Compensation
-
Date
of
determination of market value - Whether
it would be the date of enforcement of the
Act of 2013, i.e. 1.1.2014 or the date of
publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of
the Act, 1894 - Making of award -
Relevance - Held, when no award has
been made u/s 11 of the Act, 1894, all the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply - In a case
where award u/s 11 had been made
before commencement of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013, all subsequent proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the
Act, 1894. (Para 16 and 17)

B. Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 113 -
Award - Computation of compensation -
Date of determination of market value -
Direction issued by Central Govt., how far
binding on St. Govt. - Held, directions
issued by the Central Government being in
exercise of the power u/s 113 of the Act,
2013 have statutory force and are binding
on all the St. Government - In view of the
statutory character of the D.O. letter
dated 26th October, 2015, it is evident
that the reference date for calculation of
market value u/s 24(1)(a) should be
01.01.2014 - High Court issued direction
to re-determine the market value of land
as on 01.01.2024 by making fresh award.
(Para 21, 22, 25 and 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

_Characters 0–39,692 of 41,546. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39692 for what follows._

5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191
the definition of news paper establishment
under the Act read with the explanation and
schedule to the Act leaves no room for
interpretation that it is the Petitioner
Company
which
is
the
'newspaper
establishment' for the purposes of this
matter. As there is no dispute that the
revenues of the petitioner company are
more than rupees one thousand crores, the
petitioner as 'newspaper establishment'
would
fall
under
Clause-I
of
the
classification
criteria
provided
under
Clause 6 of the Wage Board.

37. In view of the interpretation of the
provisions as recorded above and the facts
as narrated, I do not find any error in the
order passed by the authority being the
order dated 04.01.2023, both the writ
petitions lack merit and are dismissed.
Further steps shall be taken in respect of
claims which is subject matter in W.P.
No.23212 of 2021 expeditiously.

38. The cost of litigation as incurred
by the respondent, to be paid by the
petitioner
is
assessed
at
Rs.25,000/-
(Twenty Five Thousand), which shall be
paid by the petitioner company to the
respondent no.1 of Writ-C No.10419 of
2023.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1191
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ-C No. 30088 of 2022

Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Narayan Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Kaushlendra Nath
Singh

A. Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 (1)
(a) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section
11
-
Compensation
-
Date
of
determination of market value - Whether
it would be the date of enforcement of the
Act of 2013, i.e. 1.1.2014 or the date of
publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of
the Act, 1894 - Making of award -
Relevance - Held, when no award has
been made u/s 11 of the Act, 1894, all the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply - In a case
where award u/s 11 had been made
before commencement of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013, all subsequent proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the
Act, 1894. (Para 16 and 17)

B. Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 113 -
Award - Computation of compensation -
Date of determination of market value -
Direction issued by Central Govt., how far
binding on St. Govt. - Held, directions
issued by the Central Government being in
exercise of the power u/s 113 of the Act,
2013 have statutory force and are binding
on all the St. Government - In view of the
statutory character of the D.O. letter
dated 26th October, 2015, it is evident
that the reference date for calculation of
market value u/s 24(1)(a) should be
01.01.2014 - High Court issued direction
to re-determine the market value of land
as on 01.01.2024 by making fresh award.
(Para 21, 22, 25 and 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal
& ors.; (2020) 8 SCC 129

2. Writ C No. 44731 of 2016; Hori Lal Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. decided on 09.03.2017

3. Writ C No. 15804 of 2016; Prahlad Singh &
ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.

4. Writ C No. 44720 of 2016; Krishna Autar &
ors. Vs St. of U.P & ors.

5.
Writ
C
No.
60276
of
2015;
Ishan
International Educational Society Thru' Director
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 09.05.2017

6. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17660 of
2017; Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs
Ishan International Educational Society & ors.
decided on 19.7.2017

7. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 26271
of 2017; Moradabad Development Authority Vs
Krishna Autar & ors. decided on 14.11.2017

8. Civil Appeal No. 1462 of 2019; Hori Lal Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 05.02.2019

9. IA No. 4 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 4821 of
2016; Aligarh Development Authority Vs Megh
Singh & ors. decided on 12.02.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Narayan Tiwari
learned counsel for petitioners and Sri
Ambarish Shukla learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondent. Shri Alok Mishra, learned
Advocate has received notices on behalf of
the respondent-NOIDA.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners herein, who are
heirs
and
legal
representatives
of
Raghunath
Rai
Sharma
son
of
Sri
Munshiram Sharma, resident of 85 Model
New Colony, Filmistan, New Delhi, the
original tenure holder of Khasra No. 39M.
area 0-14-0 Bigha situated in revenue
Village Gejha Tilpatabad, Pargana and
Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, the acquired land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notifications
dated 13.1.1995 and 21.9.1995 under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894; respectively, seek the following
relief:-

"(i) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of MANDAMUS commanding and
directing the respondents authorities to
make payment of compensation award for
the acquired land in the year 1995 bearing
Khasra
No.
39M Area-0-14-0
bigha
situated in Village Gejha Tilpatabad,
Pargana, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam
Budh Nagar belonging to petitioner's
ancestors namely Raghunath Rai Sharma
as per the prevailing market rate in the
light of Section - 24 (1) (a) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 within stipulated
period otherwise to vacate the land in
question forthwith along with suitable
damages compensation.

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of MANDAMUS commanding and
directing the respondent no. 2 to consider
and decide the pending representation
dated 18.2.2021 within stipulated period.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem, just and proper in the circumstances
of the case.

(iv) Issue the award cost of this
petition petitioner."

3. The assertions in the writ petition
are that the symbolic possession of an area
44.312 acres of the acquired land was taken
on 6.2.1998, however, possession of the
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1193
remaining area of 76.848 acres could not be
taken on account of the pendency of the
writ petitions filed by one Maharshi Ved
Vigyan Vidyapeeth
and other
tenure
holders wherein interim order was granted
by this Court. The writ petitions were
dismissed on 7.4.2004 and Special Leave
Petition Nos. 21130/2004 and 21143/2004
were
dismissed
on
21.4.2006.
After
dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions,
the possession memo of 76.848 acres of
acquired land was prepared on 31.5.2006,
whereunder the possession of Khasra No.
39 area 2-9-0 Bigha had been taken. A copy
of the possession memo is appended as
Annexure ''4' to the writ petition.

4. It is stated in the writ petition that
Khasra No. 39 area 1-15-0 Bigha (0.4430
hectares) was recorded in the name of
Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth and
Khasra No. 39M. area 0-14-0 Bigha was
recorded in the name of Raghunath Rai
Sharma, the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners herein. The copy of the revenue
record of Khasra No. 39, being in the name
of Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vidyapeeth is
appended as Annexure ''5' to the writ
petition. However, the record of entry of
Khasra No. 39M. in the name of
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners
namely Raghunath Rai Sharma has not
been appended with the writ petition.

5. Be that as it may, the dispute raised
in the present writ petition is with regard to
the determination of compensation of
Khasra No. 39M. area 0-14-0, i.e. 0.1771
hectares.

6. On the presentation of the writ
petition,
on
the
written
instructions
provided by the learned Standing Counsel
dated 17.12.2022 under the signature of the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition),
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
addressed to the learned Chief Standing
Counsel, High Court, Allahabad, taking
note of the stand of the respondent-State
therein, the order dated 10.1.2023 had been
passed by this Court. The contents of the
written instructions has been extracted in
the order dated 10.1.2023, which reads as
under:-

"In the written instructions supplied by
the Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar, it is
indicated that total area 2-9-0 Bigha of
Khasra no. 39 was acquired by acquisition
notifications
dated
13.1.1995
and
21.9.1995 under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; respectively. It
is sought to be submitted that the
possession of the acquired land has been
handed over to NOIDA on 31.5.2006. At
the time of acquisition, over the area 1-150 of Khasra No. 39, Khata No. 306, the
name of Maharishi Ved Vigyan Peeth
Maharishi Ghaziabad was recorded in the
revenue
records
whereas
over
the
remaining area 0-14-0 of Khasra No. 39,
Khata No.372 name of Raghunath Rai
Sharma son of Munshi Ram Sharma,
resident of 85 Model Nai Basti Philmistan,
New Delhi was recorded. It is further
recorded that compensation has not been
received by the landowners. The award
under the 'Karar Niyamawali' has been
declared for those landowners who have
given their consent. However, for the
remaining area, there is no award. The
contention
is
that
proceeding
for
declaration of award to pay compensation
under Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013(in short "Act, 2013") is under way."

It may be noted that in the written
instructions submitted on behalf the State,
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
it was admitted that the name of Sri
Raghunath Rai Sharma, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners herein was
recorded over Khasra No. 39 area 0-14-0. It
was also admitted that the tenure holders of
Gata No. 39 in two Khata Nos. 306 and 372
did not receive compensation. It was also
stated that the possession of the acquired
land was handed over to the acquiring body
namely NOIDA on 31.5.2006. The award
for the acquired land under ''Karar
Niyamawali' had been passed, but for the
remaining area, no award had been
declared
and
the
proceedings
for
declaration of the award under Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013") was underway.

Pursuant to the directions issued by
this Court in the order dated 10.1.2023, an
affidavit dated 6.2.2023 has been filed
wherein a copy of the award dated 4.2.2023
declared by the Deputy Collector, Land
Acquisition
Department/the
Additional
District Magistrate (Land Acquisition),
Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 11(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been
placed on record. The said award dated
4.2.2023 has been made with respect to
Gata No. 39M. area 0-14-0 bigha or 0.1771
hectares, purportedly under the order dated
10.1.2023 passed by this Court.

7. It may further be noted that the
possession
memo
dated
31.5.2006
appended as Annexure '4' to the writ
petition, noted above, shows that the
possession of an area 2-9-0 of Gata No. 39,
shown as Park, had been handed over to
NOIDA on 31.5.2006. It is noted in the
possession memo itself that the acquisition
of total area 121.16 acres of revenue
Village Gejha Tilpatabad, Pargana and
Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Budh Nagar
had
been
made
by
the
acquisition
notifications
mentioned
above.
The
possession of 44.312 acres was handed
over to the Development Authority on
6.2.1998 and for the remaining area of
76.848 acres, the proceedings for delivery
of possession could not be drawn on
account of the pendency of the writ
petitions, noted therein. After decision of
this Court and the Apex Court dated
7.4.2004 and 21.4.2006; respectively, in the
aforesaid challenge, the possession memo
of 76.848 acres was drawn and possession
was handed over to the Development
Authority on 31.5.2006.

8. It is an admitted fact of the matter
that Khasra No. 39 was recorded in the
name of two persons namely Maharshi Ved
Vigyan Vidyapeeth on an area of 1-15-0
Bigha (0.4430 hectares) and Khasra No.
39M. area 0-14-0 bigha, 0.1771 hectares in
the name of Raghunath Rai Sharma, the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It
is, thus, evident that the total area of plot
no. 39, which comes to 2-9-0, was handed
over to the Development Authority after the
decision of this Court in the challenge to
the acquisition proceedings. It is also an
admitted fact of the matter that award for
the remaining area, compensation of which
was not accepted by the tenure holders had
not been declared and the only award under
the ''Karar Niyamawali' of the acquired
land had been declared.

The award dated 4.2.2023 declared
under the order dated 10.1.2023 of Khasra
No. 39 area 0-14-0 bigha (0.1771 hectares)
further indicates that for determination of
the market value of the plot in question, the
cut-off date has been determined as the date
of Section 4(1) notification under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, in view of a
Government Order dated 1st June, 2015,
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1195
reference of which finds place in the award
itself. The copy of the Government Order
dated 1st June, 2015 has been provided by
the learned counsel for the petitioners in the
compilation supplied by them.

9. A perusal thereof indicates that it
was
issued
with
reference
to
a
communication dated 18th March, 2015 of
the Commissioner and Director, Land
Acquisition Directorate, Board of Revenue,
U.P., Lucknow, seeking clarification with
reference to the determination of cut-off
date for determination of market value, in
such matters where acquisition notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 had
been issued prior to 1.1.2014. It was
clarified therein that the cut-off date for
determination of market value in such
matters would be treated as the date of
publication of the notification under
Section 4(1), under the Act, 1894.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners,
however, relied on a notification dated 26th
October, 2015 issued by the Government of
India, Department of Land Resources,
Ministry of Rural Development under
Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

11. The submission is that the said
notification clarifies doubt and settles the
dispute relating to the reference date for
calculation of market value under Section
24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and
provides that 1.1.2014 shall be the date for
calculation of market value in view of
Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013. The dispute, thus, pertains to the cutoff date under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
for applying the provisions of Section
24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

12. In the rival submissions, both the
counsels for the petitioners and the State
Government and NOIDA, relied upon the
above noted notifications issued by the
Central Government and the State of U.P.,
to assert their stand with regard to the date
of determination of date for computation of
market value in cases where the award is
made after enforcement of the RFCTLARR
Act,
2013
though
proceedings
for
acquisition had been commenced under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

13. To appreciate the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties, we are first
required to go through the object and
purpose of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and
the relevant provisions thereof.

The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
had been enacted with the objective to
provide fair compensation to those whose
land is taken away, to bring transparency to
the process of acquisition of land for
infrastructural projects, to set up factories
or buildings and to assure rehabilitation of
those affected. In the statement of objects
and reasons of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013,
it was noted that the provisions of the Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894,
relating
to
acquisition of land for public purpose and
also for companies and for determining the
amount of compensation to be made on
account of such acquisition, have been
found to be inadequate in addressing
certain issues relating to the exercise of the
statutory
powers
of
the
State
for
involuntary acquisition of private land and
property, the issues of rehabilitation and
resettlement to the affected persons and,
their families. In order to provide a unified
legislation dealing with acquisition of land,
to provide for just and fair compensation
and to make adequate provisions for
rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the affected persons and their families,
the bill for repealing and replacing the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to seek the
above objectives, had been introduced in
the Lok Sabha on 7th September, 2011 and
received assent of the President in 2013.
The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was passed by
both the Houses of Parliament, received
assent of President on 27th September,
2013 and has been brought into force on
1.1.2014. Section 24 of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013 relevant for our purposes is
noted hereunder:-

"Section
24.
Land
acquisition
process under Act No. 1 of 1984 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."

Section 113 and Section 114 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are also relevant to
be noted hereunder:-

"Section 113. Power to remove
difficulties.

(1) If any difficulty arises in giving
effect to the provisions of this Part, the
Central Government may, by order, make
such provisions or give such directions not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
as may appear to it to be necessary or
expedient for the removal of the difficulty:

(2) Every order made under this
section shall be laid, as soon as may be
after it is made, before each House of
Parliament.

Section 114. Repeal and saving.

(1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1
of 1894) is hereby repealed.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this
Act the repeal under sub-section (1) shall
not be held to prejudice or affect the
general application of section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897)
with regard to the effect of repeals."

A conjoint reading of the above noted
provisions indicates that with the coming
into force of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
w.e.f. 1.1.2014, the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 stood repealed.

14. Section 24(1), however, deals
with certain situations which arose on
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1197
account of repeal of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.

15. It starts with a non-obstante clause
and sub-section (1) of Section 24 provides
certain contingencies in which the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were to be
continued. Clause (a) of sub-section (1)
deals with the contingencies where award
under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 had not
been made in the proceedings initiated
under the Act, 1894 and states that all
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply.

We may further note that clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 24 saves the
entire proceedings of acquisition of land
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 where award under Section 11 of the
said Act had already been made. It is
provided therein that the such proceedings
shall continue under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.

Sub-section (2) of Section 24 deals
with the situation where neither the
compensation had been paid nor the
possession of the acquired land under 1894
Act had been taken. The interpretation of
sub-section (2) of Section 24 has been
made by the Apex Court in the case of
Indore
Development
Authority
vs.
Manoharlal and others1 and the dispute
pertaining to the interpretation of the said
provision, from various angles has been set
at rest. For the issues raised herein, the
provisions of sub-section (1)(a) of Section
24 are relevant.

16. The question is as to where no
award has been made under Section 11 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while
making
an
award
by
applying
the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation, what would be the date for
determination of market value, whether it
would be the date of enforcement of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, i.e. 1.1.2014 or the
date of publication of the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 as provided in
Section 23(1) of the Act, 1894.

17. From the provisions of Section 24
read with section 114 of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013, it can be discerned that the
provisions pertaining to determination of
compensation under Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, providing for
determination of amount of compensation
to be awarded for land acquired under the
Act, 1894, stood repealed. The provision as
contained in sub-section (1) of Section 23,
for determination of the market value of the
land at the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act,
1894, therefore, cannot be applied. The
only saving to the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 is under clauses (a)
and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of
2013 Act. The general application of subsection (6) of the General Clauses Act,
1894 with regard to the effect of repeals, as
provided in sub-section (2) of Section 114
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not
applicable
to
the
proceedings
for
determination of compensation in the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The result is that as per clause (a) of
sub-section (1) of Section 24, when no
award has been made under Section 11 of
the Act, 1894, all the provisions of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply.
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In a case where award under Section
11 had been made before commencement
of
the
RFCTLARR
Act,
2013,
all
subsequent proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the Act, 1894 as if
the Act has not been repealed.

18. Now the question remains as to
what would be the procedure applicable for
determination of compensation under the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

19. We may note the provisions of
Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013,
which provides the criteria to be adopted by
the Collector in assessing and determining
the market value of the land, the relevant
clauses (a), (b) and (c) and the proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 26 are extracted
hereunder:-

"26. Determination of market value
of land by Collector.-

(1) The Collector shall adopt the
following
criteria
in
assessing
and
determining the market value of the land,
namely:--

(a) the market value, if any, specified
in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899)
for the registration of sale deeds or
agreements to sell, as the case may be, in
the area, where the land is situated; or

(b) the average sale price for similar
type of land situated in the nearest village
or nearest vicinity area; or

(c) consented amount of compensation
as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of
section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for
private companies or for public private
partnership projects, whichever is higher:

Provided
that
the
date
for
determination of market value shall be the
date on which the notification has been
issued under section 11."

As per the proviso to sub-section (1),
the date of determination of market value
for acquisitions under the RFCTLARR Act,
2013 is the date on which the notification
has been issued under Section 11 of the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which provides for
publication of preliminary notification,
notifying the intention of the appropriate
Government to acquire land in any area for
any public purpose. Section 11 of 2013 Act
is pari materia to Section 4 of the Act, 1894
in the matter of issuance of declaration of
preliminary notification of proposal of
acquisition.
Thus,
in
a
case
where
acquisition is made after enforcement of
the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, i.e. on or after
1.1.2014, there cannot be a dispute about
the date of determination of market value
for the purposes of computation of
compensation. However, there remained an
ambiguity with regard to the transitional
phase on the applicability of Section
24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

20. On the ambiguity of the date of
determination of market value in the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no
award had been made under Section 11 of
the Act, 1894 before enforcement of the
RFCTLARR Act,
2013,
the
Central
Government had issued a notification dated
26th October, 2015, on the similar issue
raised by the Government of Maharashtra.
In the D.O. No.13013/01/2014-LRD(Pt),
dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Joint
Secretary (LR), Government of India,
Department of Land Resources, Ministry of
Rural Development, copy of which was
forwarded to all Principal Secretaries of the
States/UTs for information and necessary
action, the issues raised by the Government
of Maharashtra for calculation of market
value under Section 24(1)(a) has been
resolved as under:-
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1199
S.No. 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
Supreme
Court's
orders
are
followed or cost of
assets
have
to
be
separately computed in
addition
to
cost
of
land?
Under
Section
26 of the
RFCTLA
R&R Act,
2013
market
value
of
land
is
determine
d
while
under
section
27, value
of
all
assets
attached
to
the
land
is
added to
the
market
value
to
determine
the
amount
of
compensa
tion.
Thus, it is
not
contradic
tory
to
the
Supreme
Court's
orders
quoted in
the letter
of
Maharas
htra
Governm
ent.
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
calculatin
g
12%
interest
should be
date
of
prelimina
ry
notificati
on under
Land
Acquisiti
on
Act,
1894.
Departme
nt
of
Land
Resource
s agrees
to this, as
there
is
no other
reference
date, that
can
be
treated as
equivalen
t to date
of
SIA
notificati
on under
the
RFCTLA
R&R Act,
2013.
3.
For
calculation
of
market
value,
under
The
reference
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section
24(1)(a),
reference date should
be
01.01.2014
(commencement
of
RFCTLAR&R
Act,
2013) or date of issuing
preliminary notification
under Land Acquisition
Act, 1894?
date
for
calculatio
n
of
market
value,
under
Section
24(1)(a)
should be
01.01.201
4
(commen
cement of
RFCTLA
R&R Act,
2013), as
the
Section
reads "in
any case
of
land
acquisitio
n
proceedin
gs
initiated
under the
Land
Acquisiti
on
Act,
1894,
where no
award
under
section 11
of
the
said Land
Acquisiti
on
Act
has been
made,
then, all
provision
s of this
Act
relating
to
the
determin
ation
of
compensa
tion shall
apply.
Under
section
26
reference
date
is
date
of
prelimina
ry
notificati
on,
but
section
24 is a
special
case
of
applicati
on of the
Act
in
retrospect
ive cases,
and
a
later date
of
determin
ation
of
market
value
is
suggested
(i.e.
01.01.201
4) with a
view
to
ensure
that
the
land
owners/fa
rmers/aff
ected
families
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1201
get
enhanced
compensa
tion
under the
provision
s of the
RFCTLA
R&R Act,
2013 (as
also
recomme
nded
by
Standing
Committe
e in its
31st
report).

21. 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
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.

22. In view of the statutory character
of the D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015,
it is evident that the reference date for
calculation of market value under Section
24(1)(a) should be 1.1.2014, the date of
commencement of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The said D.O.
letter dated further clarifies that under
Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
though the reference date is the date of
preliminary notification but Section 24 is
the special case of application of the Act,
2013 in retrospective cases and a later date
of determination of market value, i.e.
1.1.2014 is suggested with a view to ensure
that
the
land
owners/farmers/affected
families get enhanced compensation under
the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013, in terms of the recommendation of
the Standing Committee in its 31st report.

(emphasis supplied)

23. In view of the directions
contained in the D.O. letter dated 26th
October, 2015 issued by the concerned
Ministry of Central Government, the
reliance placed on the notification dated 1st
June, 2015 issued by the Government of
U.P. is wholly misplaced.

24. In any case, the said notification
of the State Government lost its efficacy
with the clarification given by the Central
Government by issuing directions under
Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013
by means of D.O. letter dated 26th October,
2015. This aspect of the matter has not
been
looked
into
while
making
computation of compensation by the
Collector in the award made on 4.2.2023,
wherein the date of determination of
market value had been treated as 13.1.1995,
the date of publication of the notification
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 4/17 of the Act, 1894, in
accordance with the provisions of Section
11 of the Act, 1894 read with Section 26(1)
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The
direction issued by the Central Government
under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013 has been completely ignored.

25. We may further note the decisions
of the Division Benches of this Court in
Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and 3 others2;
Prahlad Singh and 6 others vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others3; Krishna Autar and 5
others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others4 and
Ishan International Educational Society
Thru' Director vs. State of U.P. & 3
others5 which have taken the same view
by considering the directions contained in
D.O. letter dated 26th October, 2015 under
Section 113 of 2013 Act, noted above, in
holding that the date of determination of
the market value of the land in the matters
falling under Section 24(1)(a) shall be
treated as 1.1.2014 in terms of the
directions
issued
by
the
Central
Government. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer had been directed therein to
redetermine the market value of the land in
question as on 1.1.2014 by making fresh
award.

26. The Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s).
17660
of
2017
(Ghaziabad
Development
Authority
vs.
Ishan
International Educational Society &
others) challenging the judgment and order
dated 9.5.2017 in Ishan International
Educational Society (supra) has been
dismissed on 19.7.2017 by the Apex Court
holding that there was no legal and valid
ground for interference. Similar is the
position with regard to the decision of this
Court in the case of Krishna Autar
(supra) where Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s). 26271 of 2017
(Moradabad Development Authority vs.
Krishna Autar & Ors) had been dismissed
on 14.11.2017. The review petition filed in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17660
of 2017 [in the matter of Ishan
International
Educational
Society
(supra)] had also been dismissed on 5th
December, 2017.

In Hori Lal (supra), the issue raised
before the Division Bench of this Court
was about the date of determination of
compensation in the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894.
It was argued on behalf of the writ
petitioners therein that the date for
determination of the market value of the
land should be the date on which awards
were made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer in the year 2015-16 and it cannot be
1.1.2014, which was turned down by the
Division Bench relying on the D.O. letter
dated 26.10.2015 issued under Section 113
of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the
provisions of 2013 Act in the matter of
determination
of
compensation.
The
judgment and order dated 9.3.2017 of the
Division Bench in Hori Lal (supra) was
challenged in Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 14820 of 2017 by the writ petitioner
therein. On conversion into Civil Appeal
No. 1462 of 2019, with the grant of leave,
the appeal had been dismissed by the Apex
Court vide judgment and order dated 5th
February, 2019.

27. A perusal of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1462 of
2019 (Hori Lal vs. State of U.P. and
others), makes it evident that the challenge
before the Apex Court was with regard to
the date for determining the compensation
and it was contended that it should be the
date on which the Land Acquisition Officer
had passed the award. The Apex Court has
5 All. Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1203
rejected the said arguments in the following
manner:-

"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"

The view taken by the Division Bench
in Hori Lal (supra) with respect to the
date of determination of compensation
being
1.1.2014,
in
land
acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894
after commencement of the RFCTLARR
Act, 2013 has, thus, been affirmed.

28. In another decision dated 12th
February, 2019, in Civil Appeal No. 4821
of 2016, in Interlocutory Application No.
4
of
2016
(Aligarh
Development
Authority vs. Megh Singh and others),
the Apex Court has held that the date of
determination of market value should be
recorded as 1.1.2014 in view of the Central
Government orders under Section 113 of
the Act. The above noted decision in the
case of Hori Lal (supra), the judgment of
this Court dated 9.5.2017 in Ishan
International
Educational
Society
(supra) have been relied upon to issue
direction to the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Aligarh therein to redetermine the
compensation as per the market value as on
1.1.2014, by setting aside the award dated
5.11.2016 therein.

Various other orders of the Apex Court
in the review applications filed in the above
noted cases have been placed before us in
the compilation supplied by the counsel for
the petitioners to assert that the issue
relating to determination of market value as
on 1.1.2014 in a case falling under Section
24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is no
longer res integra.

29. In view of the above discussion,
the award dated 4.2.2023 passed by the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar is found
to be contrary to the legal position stated
above and, hence, it cannot be given effect
to. The concerned officer namely the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar is
directed to make a fresh award by
determining the market value of the land in
Gata No. 39M. area 0-14-0 or 0.1771
hectares, by considering the market value
of the land in question as on 1.1.2014. It
would
be
open
for
the
petitioners
herein/land owners to place the exemplars
before the Additional District Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition),
Gautam
Budh
Nagar/Special Land Acquisition Officer to
determine the market value. The officer
concerned shall be under obligation to
determine just and fair market value of the
land in question and compute compensation
by including all elements of compensation,
strictly in accordance with the provisions of
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determination of compensation under the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.

The
amount
of
compensation
determined under the award shall be
released by the competent authority within
a further period of two weeks, thereafter, in
favour of the tenure holders/persons
interested after due determination of their
share of entitlement and verification of
their identity.

With the above directions, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1204
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 3000051 of 1999

Preetam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avadhesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.