# FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v. DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 3 S.C.R. 190
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-05-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/faizabad-ayodhya-development-authority-faizabad-v-dr-rajesh-kumar-pandey-ors-35909
- **Pages:** 60

## Headnote

Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 - s.24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.11 - Whether
in a case where an award u/s.11 of the Act, 1894 could not be
declared by the Authority due to the pendency of the writ petition
and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court, which was filed
by the landowners and consequently as on the date on which the
Act, 2013 came into force, there was no award declared u/s.11 of
the Act, 1894, the original landowners shall be entitled to
compensation determined under sub-section (1) of s.24 of the Act,
2013 - Held: In a case where on the date of commencement of the
Act, 2013, no award has been declared u/s.11 of the Act, 1894, due
to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted
by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the
compensation u/s.24(1) of the Act, 2013 and they shall be entitled
to the compensation only under the Act, 1894 - The landowners
cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained
by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award u/
s.11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the
matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation u/s.24(1) of the Act,
2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them
- The intention of the Parliament while enacting s.24(1) of the Act,
2013 cannot be to give benefit to a litigant, who has obtained a
stay order and because of that the award could not be declared
and thereafter the litigant may be awarded the compensation as per
Act, 2013 - It may even result in discrimination between the
landowners, whose lands have been acquired under the same
notification, which would never have been the intention of the
Parliament.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 - s.24(1) - Observations made in Indore Development
Authority case summarized - Held: The observations would be aptly
applicable while interpreting and considering s.24(1) of the Act,
2013.
Doctrines / Principles - Principle of Restitution - Discussed
- Held: The principle of restitution is a remedy against unjust
enrichment or unjust benefit - Restitutionary jurisdiction is inherent
in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation - Wrongful
gain of frivolous litigation has to be eliminated if the faith of people
in the judiciary has to be sustained - An unsuccessful litigant
(landowner) who had the benefit of an interim order in his favour
(whilst a challenge was made to the land acquisition proceedings)
cannot encash or take advantage of the same on the enforcement
of the Act, 2013 by initially stalling the acquisition process and
later seeking a higher compensation under the provisions of Act,
2013 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Restitutionary jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 begins with a nonobstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act, 2013 in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - (a)
Where no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been made,
all provisions of the Act, 2013 relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply; or (b) Where an award under Section
11 has been made, such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the Act, 1894 as if the said Act has not been
repealed. [Para 10.1][207-G-H; 208-A]
1.2. The expression "where no award under Section 11 of
the said Land Acquisition Act has been made" in clause (a) of
sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 has to be read
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RA

## Text

_Characters 0–39,655 of 138,307. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39655 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
 [2022] 3 S.C.R. 190
190
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
FAIZABAD
v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 - s.24(1) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.11 - Whether
in a case where an award u/s.11 of the Act, 1894 could not be
declared by the Authority due to the pendency of the writ petition
and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court, which was filed
by the landowners and consequently as on the date on which the
Act, 2013 came into force, there was no award declared u/s.11 of
the Act, 1894, the original landowners shall be entitled to
compensation determined under sub-section (1) of s.24 of the Act,
2013 - Held: In a case where on the date of commencement of the
Act, 2013, no award has been declared u/s.11 of the Act, 1894, due
to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted
by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the
compensation u/s.24(1) of the Act, 2013 and they shall be entitled
to the compensation only under the Act, 1894 - The landowners
cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained
by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award u/
s.11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the
matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation u/s.24(1) of the Act,
2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them
- The intention of the Parliament while enacting s.24(1) of the Act,
2013 cannot be to give benefit to a litigant, who has obtained a
stay order and because of that the award could not be declared
and thereafter the litigant may be awarded the compensation as per
Act, 2013 - It may even result in discrimination between the
landowners, whose lands have been acquired under the same
notification, which would never have been the intention of the
Parliament.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 - s.24(1) - Observations made in Indore Development
Authority case summarized - Held: The observations would be aptly
applicable while interpreting and considering s.24(1) of the Act,
2013.
Doctrines / Principles - Principle of Restitution - Discussed
- Held: The principle of restitution is a remedy against unjust
enrichment or unjust benefit - Restitutionary jurisdiction is inherent
in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation - Wrongful
gain of frivolous litigation has to be eliminated if the faith of people
in the judiciary has to be sustained - An unsuccessful litigant
(landowner) who had the benefit of an interim order in his favour
(whilst a challenge was made to the land acquisition proceedings)
cannot encash or take advantage of the same on the enforcement
of the Act, 2013 by initially stalling the acquisition process and
later seeking a higher compensation under the provisions of Act,
2013 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Restitutionary jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 begins with a nonobstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act, 2013 in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - (a)
Where no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been made,
all provisions of the Act, 2013 relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply; or (b) Where an award under Section
11 has been made, such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the Act, 1894 as if the said Act has not been
repealed. [Para 10.1][207-G-H; 208-A]
1.2. The expression "where no award under Section 11 of
the said Land Acquisition Act has been made" in clause (a) of
sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 has to be read
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
contextually and not by way of a plain reading. This is because a
land owner who has an interim order of stay of further proceedings
pursuant to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, 1894
issued by a Court of law and has thereby restrained the Collector/
Land Acquisition Officer from making an award cannot thereafter
by contending that as on 01.01.2014, no award has been made by
the acquiring authority seek benefit under the provisions of the
Act, 2013 by receiving a higher compensation. [Para 10.10]
[211-E-F]
2.1. Section 24 is in the nature of a saving clause to save all
acquisitions initiated under the provisions of Act, 1894 and at
the same time, to grant certain reliefs under the provisions of
Act, 2013 such as lapse of acquisition under sub-section 2 of
Section 24 of the Act or clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 24
thereof. Therefore, while applying the said provisions to the facts
of each case, it is necessary to bear in mind the contextual
interpretation having regard to provisions under both the Acts.
This also becomes clear on a reading of clause (b) of sub-section
1 of Section 24 which states that if an award has been made under
Section 11 of Act, 1894 as on 01.01.2014 i.e., the date of
enforcement of Act, 2013, then the proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of Act, 1894 as if the same has not been
repealed. But if no award has been made as on 01.01.2014 then
clause (a) of sub-section 1 of Section 24 would apply.
[Para 10.11][211-F-H; 212-A]
2.2. It is, thus, necessary to dwell into the reasons as to
why no award has been made. If there is an order of restraint on
the Collector or on the acquiring authority and as a result of which,
the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer is not in a position
to make an award for reasons beyond his control and in
compliance of the interim order granted by a court of law at the
instance of the land owner or any other person who may have
questioned the acquisition, the period during which the interim
order has operated has to be reckoned and if on the date of
enforcement of Act, 2013 i.e., 01.01.2014, no award has been
made owing to the operation of such an interim order granted by
a Court in favour of the land owner, then the provisions of the
2013, Act cannot straightaway be made applicable in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
193
determination of the compensation. This is because, but for the
operation of the interim order, the award could have been made
under the provisions of the Act, 1894 until 31.12.2013 and then
provisions of Act, 1894 would have applied as per clause (b) of
sub-section 1 of Section 24. But on the other hand, owing to the
operation of the interim order granted by a Court in favour of
land owner, the award would not have been made as on 01.01.2014
when the Act, 2013 was enforced. [Para 10.12][212-B-E]
2.3. In such a situation the acquiring authority cannot be
burdened with the determination of compensation under the
provisions of the Act, 2013. In other words, the land owner cannot,
on the one hand, assail the acquisition and seek interim orders
restraining the authorities from proceeding further in the
acquisition, and on the other hand, contend that since no award
has been made under Section 11 of Act, 1894 on 01.01.2014, the
provisions of the Act, 2013 should be made applicable in
determining the compensation. [Para 10.13][212-E-G]
3.1. On interpreting sub-section (2) of Section 24 of Act,
2013, the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development
Authority case made certain observations. The sum and substance
of the same could be summarized as under:-
(i)
The time of five years is provided to the authorities
to take action, not to sleep over the matter;
(ii)
Only in cases of lethargy or inaction and default on
the part of the authorities and for no other reason
lapse of acquisition can occur;
(iii)
Lapse of acquisition takes place only in case of default
by the authorities acquiring the land, not caused by
any other reason or order of the court;
(iv)
The additional compensation @ 12% provided under
Section 69 of the Act, 2013 has been excluded from
the period acquisition proceedings have been held
up on account of the interim injunction order of any
court;
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
(v)
If it was not possible for the acquiring authorities, for
any reason not attributable to them or the
Government, to take requisite steps, the period has
to be excluded;
(vi)
In case the authorities are prevented by the court's
order, obviously, as per the interpretation of the
provisions such period has to be excluded;
(vii) The intent of the Act, 2013 is not to benefit
landowners only. The provisions of Section 24 by itself
do not intend to confer benefits on litigating parties
as such, while as per Section 114 of the Act, 2013 and
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act the case has to
be litigated as per the provisions of the Act, 1894.
(viii) It is not the intendment of the Act, 2013 that those
who have assailed the acquisition process should get
benefits of higher compensation as contemplated
under Section 24;
(ix)
It is not intended by the provisions that in case, the
persons, who have litigated and have obtained interim
orders from the Civil Courts by filing suits or from
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
should have the benefits of the provisions of the Act,
2013 except to the extent specifically provided under
the Act, 2013;
(x)
In cases where some landowners have chosen to take
recourse to litigation and have obtained interim orders
restraining taking of possession or orders of status
quo, as a matter of practical reality it is not possible
for the authorities or the Government to take
possession or to make payment of compensation to
the landowners. In several instances, such interim
orders also have impeded the making of an award;
(xi)
However, so far as awards are concerned, the period
provided for making of awards under the Act, 2013
(sic 1894 Act) could be excluded by virtue of
Explanation to Section 11-A, which provided that in
computing the period of two years, the period during
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
195
which any action or proceeding to be taken in
pursuance of the declaration is stayed by an order of
a court shall be excluded;
(xii) The litigation initiated by the landowners has to be
decided on its own merits and the benefits of Section
24(2) should not be available to the litigants in a
straightjacket manner. In case there is no interim
order, they can get the benefits they are entitled to,
not otherwise. Delays and dilatory tactics and
sometimes wholly frivolous pleas cannot result in
benefitting the landowners under sub-section (1) of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013;
(xiii) Any type of order passed by this Court would inhibit
action on the part of the authorities to proceed further,
when a challenge to acquisition is pending;
(xiv) Interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of
the landowners would cause a complete restraint on
the authorities to proceed further to issue declaration;
(xv) When the authorities are disabled from performing
duties due to impossibility, it would be a sufficient
excuse for them to save them from rigour of provisions
of Section 24. A litigant may have a good or a bad
cause, be right or wrong. But he cannot be permitted
to take advantage of a situation created by him by
way of an interim order passed in his favour by the
Court at his instance. Although provision of Section
24 does not discriminate between landowners, who
are litigants or non-litigants and treat them differently
with respect to the same acquisition, it is necessary
to view all of them from the stand point of the intention
of the Parliament. Otherwise, anomalous results may
occur and provisions may become discriminatory in
itself;
(xvi) The law does not expect the performance of the
impossible;
(xvii) An act of the court shall prejudice no man;
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
(xviii)A party prevented from doing an act by certain
circumstances beyond his control can do so at the
first subsequent opportunity;
(xix) When there is a disability to perform a part of the law,
such a charge has to be excused. When performance
of the formalities prescribed by a statute is rendered
impossible by circumstances over which the persons
concerned have no control, it has to be taken as a
valid excuse;
(xx) The Court under its inherent jurisdiction ex debito
justitiae has a duty to mitigate the damage suffered
by the defendants by the act of the Court;
(xxi) No person can suffer from the act of Court and an
unfair advantage of the interim order must be
neutralised;
(xxii) No party can be permitted to take shelter under the
cover of Court's order to put the other party in a
disadvantageous position;
(xxiii) If one has enjoyed under the Court's cover, that
period cannot be included towards inaction of the
authorities to take requisite steps under Section 24
as the State authorities would have acted and passed
an award determining compensation but for the
Court's order. [Paras 11, 12][212-G; 243-D-H;
244-A-H; 245-A-H; 346-A-C]
3.2. Repelling the submission that there is no express
provision in Section 24, that excludes the period during which
any interim order was operative, preventing the State from making
an award, it was observed and held that preventing the State from
taking the possession of acquired land or from giving effect to
the award, in a particular case or cases, cannot result in the
inclusion of such period or periods for the purpose of reckoning
the period of five years. [Para 13][246-C-D]
3.3. The aforesaid observations would be aptly applicable
while interpreting and considering Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
The intention of the Parliament while enacting Section 24(1) of
the Act, 2013 cannot be to give benefit to a litigant, who has
obtained a stay order and because of that the award could not be
declared and thereafter the litigant may be awarded the
compensation as per Act, 2013. It may even result in
discrimination between the landowners, whose lands have been
acquired under the same notification, which would never have
been the intention of the Parliament. [Para 14][246-E; 246-G-H;
247-C-D]
4.1. In the case of Indore Development Authority, this Court
applied the principle of restitution. It was observed that the
principle of restitution is founded on the ideal of doing complete
justice at the end of litigation, and parties have to be placed in
the same position but for the litigation and interim order, if any,
passed in the matter. Applying the principle of restitution, it was
further observed that no party could take advantage of a litigation.
It was further observed and held that the principle of restitution
is a statutory recognition of the rule of justice, equity and fair
play. The court has inherent jurisdiction to order restitution so
as to do complete justice. This is also on the principle that an
unsuccessful litigant who had the benefit of an interim order in
his favour cannot encash or take advantage of the same on the
enforcement of the Act, 2013 by initially stalling the acquisition
process and later seeking a higher compensation under the
provisions of Act, 2013. This is for the reason that if at the instance
of a landowner, who has challenged the acquisition, an interim
order has been passed by a Court is successful then the
proceeding of acquisition or the acquisition notification would be
quashed. Then there would be no occasion to determine any
compensation. But on the other hand, if a landowner, who has the
benefit of an interim order in his favour whilst a challenge is made
to the acquisition, is unsuccessful, he cannot then contend that
he must be paid compensation under the provision of the Act,
2013 on its enforcement, whereas a landowner, who did not have
the benefit of any interim order is paid compensation determined
under the provisions of the Act, 1894, which is lesser than what
would be computed under the Act, 2013. [Para 15][247-D-H;
248-A]
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
4.2. The principle of restitution is a remedy against unjust
enrichment or unjust benefit. The restitutionary jurisdiction is
inherent in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation.
A person on the right side of the law should not be deprived, on
account of the effects of litigation; the wrongful gain of frivolous
litigation has to be eliminated if the faith of people in the judiciary
has to be sustained. [Para 15.1][248-B-C]
4.3. Therefore, even applying the principle of restitution,
as applied by this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority, the landowners cannot be permitted to take advantage
of the interim order obtained by them due to which the Authority
could not declare the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894
and thereafter contend that in that view of the matter, he/they
shall be paid the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act,
2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them
on determination of the compensation under the Act, 2013.
[Para 16][248-D-E]
Conclusion
5.1. In a case where on the date of commencement of Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been
declared under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, due
to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted
by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the
compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and they shall
be entitled to the compensation only under the Act, 1894.
[Para 17][248-F-H]
5.2. The concerned appropriate Authority(s) to declare the
award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 with respect to the lands
in question and determine the compensation under the provisions
of the Act, 1894 by taking into consideration Section 114 of the
Act, 2013 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897,
wherever applicable and the original landowners shall be paid
the compensation accordingly, under the provisions of the Act,
1894. [Para 18][249-A-B]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1; State of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
199
Gujarat v. Essar Oil Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 522 : [2012]
2 SCR 1127 and A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya
Rajakula
Vamsathu
Madalaya
Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam, (2012) 6 SCC 430 : [2012]
4 SCR 74 - followed.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 7.5
[2012] 2 SCR 1127
followed
Para 15.1
[2012] 4 SCR 74
referred
Para 15.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2915
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Land Acquisition
No.41 of 2012.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.2917, 2918 And 2919 of 2022.
V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., R. K. Singh, M. M. Pandey, Mrs. Neeraj
Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Praveen Pathak, Ajay Chaudhary, Ms. Ritu
Reniwal, Sajith P., Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Sameer Kulshreshtha, Rakesh
Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Rishabh Kumar Pandey,
Mridul Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
S. R. Singh, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advs., Yash Pal Dhingra, Prateek
Yadav, Ms. Sunita Pandit, K. K. Yadav, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes,
Mohd. Muztaba, Ankur Yadav, Ms. Manju Jetley, Rudreshwar Singh,
Kaushik Poddar, Ms. Isha Singh, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Kumar
Deepraj, Vikas Tiwari, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Bhakti Vardhan Singh,
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,
Mohan Dadwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgments
and orders/order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents
herein - original landowners by which the High Court has disposed of
the said writ petitions by directing the respective appellant(s) -
Development Authorities to pay the compensation to the original
landowners as per "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2013)" on the ground that on the
date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Section 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act,
1894") was declared with respect to the lands acquired, the respective
Development Authorities have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022
3. Land totally measuring 17.172 hectares in village Ranopali,
District Faizabad was requisitioned by the Faizabad Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") for the purpose of
residential project. The land therein included land admeasuring 03.13
hectares in Plot Nos. 407, 413 and 415 belonging to respondent Nos. 1
to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the "original landowners").
3.1 Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 read with Section
17 was issued. The original landowners preferred Writ Petition No. 3810
of 2005 before the High Court challenging the acquisition with respect
to the aforesaid three plots. The High Court granted interim stay
restraining the Authority from taking over the possession of the aforesaid
three plots. Except the aforesaid three plot, the possession of the entire
land was taken over by the Authority. Even the Award under Section 11
of Act, 1894 was also declared except in respect of the aforesaid three
plots in question, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High
Court and due to the interim order passed by the High Court. It is this
significant fact, which has led us to consider this case in light of the real
intention of the Parliament under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Thus,
excluding the land involved in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., the aforesaid
three plots, possession of the remaining property was taken over on
07.09.2005 and Award therein was published on 10.04.2007. A total sum
of Rs. 5,11,60,606.00 was made available on different dates with respect
to the compensation to be paid.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
3.2 Vide order dated 27.09.2010, the High Court has disposed of
the said Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 preferred by the respondents
herein by directing the State Government to consider the application/
representation submitted by the original landowners under Section 48(1)
of the Act, 1894. That the Appropriate Authority rejected the
representation/application of the original landowners under Section 48
of the Act, 1894 vide order dated 13.03.2012. The respondents herein -
original landowners again preferred the present Writ Petition No. 41 of
2012 before the High Court.
3.3 During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Act, 2013
came into force. At the time of hearing of the present writ petition before
the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the original landowners -
original writ petitioners that as no award has been made under Section
11 of the Act, 1894, therefore, the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act,
2013 would be attracted and the original landowners shall be entitled to
the compensation determined under the provisions of Act, 2013.
3.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition and has observed and held that the
respondents herein - original writ petitioners - original landowners would
be entitled to compensation in terms of provisions of Section 24(1) of the
Act, 2013. Therefore, as pursuant to the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High court, now the original landowners / original writ
petitioners will have to be paid compensation as determined under the
Act, 2013, the Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad has
preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 2917 of 2022
4. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2017, the
High Court has directed the appellant - Moradabad Development
Authority to declare the award and determine the compensation under
Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and consequently, the respondents herein
- original landowners shall be entitled to compensation determined under
the Act, 2013. Hence, the Moradabad Development Authority has
preferred the present appeal.
4.1 Before the High Court, in the writ petition, the original writ
petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings mainly on the ground
that the award was not made within two years of the publication of the
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and therefore, in view of
the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, 1894, the acquisition has lapsed.
4.2 However, during the course of hearing of the writ petition and
without any specific prayer sought to determine and pay the
compensation under the Act, 2013, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the original writ petitioners placed reliance upon the provisions of
Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and relied upon paragraph 20 of the counter
affidavit in which it was stated that the award has not been made under
Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and therefore, the award will now be made
under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013.
4.3 It was the case on behalf of the appellant that as such the
award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 could not be declared in view
of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim stay order granted by
the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has directed the appellant - Moradabad Development Authority to declare
the award under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013.
4.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the High Court directing the appellant to declare the award
under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, Moradabad Development Authority
has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 2918 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 2919 of
2022
5. Civil Appeal No. 2918 of 2022 is arising out of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 20.07.2017 passed
in Writ Petition No. 31806 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 2919 of 2022 is
arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court dated 20.07.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 29247 of 2011 by
which similar orders have been passed by the High Court directing the
Moradabad Development Authority to declare the award under Section
24(1) of the Act, 2013 and thereby the original landowners shall be entitled
to the compensation determined under the Act, 2013, the Moradabad
Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
6. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on
behalf of the respective Development Authority(s) and Shri S.R. Singh,
learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respective original
landowners - original writ petitioners.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
7. Shri Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the respective Development Authority(s) has vehemently submitted that
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed
a grave error in directing the Development Authority(s) to declare the
award under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and thereby now the original
landowners shall be entitled to the compensation determined under the
Act, 2013.
7.1 It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated
the fact that as such the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not
declare the award due to the pendency of the writ petitions before the
High Court and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court either
restraining the Authority from taking over the possession and/or directing
to maintain the status quo.
7.2 It is submitted that in fact in Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022, in
view of the fact that the urgency clause was applied, even 80% of the
compensation was deposited, however, the award under Section 11 of
the Act, 1894 could not be declared because of the pendency of the writ
petition before the High Court. It is submitted that in the said case, such
a large area of the land was acquired including Plot Nos. 407, 413 and
415 belonging to the respondents herein. It is submitted that the award
excluding the aforesaid three plots was in fact declared under Section
11 of the Act and it was also stated therein that the award with respect
to the aforesaid three plots in question could not be declared in view of
the stay order granted by the High Court. It is contended that the award
with respect to the plots in question could not be declared under Section
11 of the Act, 1894 in view of the pendency of the writ petition before
the High court and the interim stay granted by the High Court.
7.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Moradabad
Development Authority in Civil Appeal Nos. 2917, 2918 and 2919 of
2022 has submitted that as such in view of the urgency clause applied,
even 80% of the compensation was already deposited, however, the
award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 could not be declared because
of the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court.
7.4 It is submitted that in fact the impugned order has been passed
by the High Court on oral submissions that the award has not been
declared and therefore they are entitled to the relief under Section 24(1)
of the Act, 2013. That as such, neither were the writ petitions amended
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
nor specific reliefs were prayed, directing the Authority(s) to declare
the award under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013. It is contended that in
any case, once the award could not be declared because of the pendency
of the writ petition and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court,
landowners cannot be permitted to take the benefit of compensation
under the Act, 2013. It is urged that there was no inaction on the part of
the Land Acquisition Officer and/or Authority in not declaring the award
under Section 11 of the Act, 1894.
7.5 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
Development Authority(s) have heavily relied upon the decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, more
particularly, paragraph 366.8. It is submitted that after detailed discussion
and after taking into consideration various decisions of this Court on the
effect of the stay granted by the Court and on the principle of restitution,
it is specifically observed and held by this Court that (i) the act of the
Court shall prejudice no one; (ii) no one is bound to do an impossibility;
(iii) law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly
perform; (iv) where law creates a duty or charge and the party is disabled
to perform it, without any default and has no remedy over, there the law
will in general excuse him; (v) it is not the intendment of the Act, 2013
that those who have litigated should get benefits of higher compensation
as contemplated under Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
7.6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
Development Authorities has heavily relied upon paragraph 366.8 of the
decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and
submitted that while interpreting Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, this
Court has specifically observed and held that the period of subsistence
of interim orders passed by the Court has to be excluded. It is submitted
that the same analogy shall be applicable in a case where the Authority
could not declare the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 due to
subsistence of the interim order passed by the Court.
7.7 Making the above submissions and relying upon the
observations made by this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) in paragraphs 284, 285, 287, 289, 293, 297, 299, 300,
301, 302, 306, 308, 309, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324,
325, 326, 329, 334 and 335, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners
have also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra). It is submitted that as observed and
held by this Court in the said decision, the moment it is found that no
award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 at the time
of commencement of Act, 2013, the landowner shall be straightaway
entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013.
8.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the original landowners - original writ petitioners that as such there is
no specific provision made in Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 to the effect
that the period of interim stay and/or pendency of the writ petition shall
be excluded. Hence, as per the settled proposition of law, a statute has
to be read as it is.
8.2 It is contended that the legislature's intention is that once the
award is not declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, at the time of
commencement of the Act, 2013, to save lapsing of the acquisition, under
sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, the original landowners
shall have to be compensated by payment of compensation determined
under the Act, 2013. Therefore, as such, the High Court has not committed
any error in directing the Development Authorities to declare the award
under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and consequently to determine the
compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013.
8.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents - original writ petitioners in Civil Appeal Nos.
2917, 2918 and 2919 of 2022 that as such in the counter affidavit, it was
submitted that as the award has not been declared, the award shall be
declared under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013. It is pointed out that
considering the aforesaid stand/submission made in the counter filed on
behalf of the Authority, the High Court has directed to declare the award
and pay the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, which
direction may not be interfered by this Court.
8.4 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeals and direct the appropriate Authorities to declare the
award under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 and to pay the compensation
to the respective landowners under the provisions of the Act, 2013.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties, the question which is posed for the consideration of
this Court is:-
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Whether in a case where an award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 could not be declared by the Authority due to the
pendency of the writ petition and/or the interim stay granted by the High
Court, which was filed by the landowners and consequently as on the
date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013) came
into force, there was no award declared under Section 11 of the Act,
1894, the original landowners shall be entitled to compensation determined
under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013?
10. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions
of the Act, 1894 and Section 24 of Act, 2013 dealing with lapse of
acquisition in the context of the question raised in this case arising under
Section 24(1)(a) of Act, 2013 especially in the context of stay orders
granted by a court of law and as a result award not being made as on
01.01.2014 i.e., the date when Act, 2013 was enforced. Sections 11 and
11A of the Act, 1894 are extracted as under:
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector. - (1) On the day
so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been
adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection
(if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice
given under Section 9 to the measurements made under section 8,
and into the value of the land at the date of the publication of the
notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective
interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make
an award under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed
for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the
persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom,
or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they
have respectively appeared before him:
Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under
this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate
Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government
may authorize in this behalf:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate
Government to direct that the Collector may make such award
without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate
Government may specify in this behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at
any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the
persons interested in the land who appeared before him have
agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the
Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate
Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an
award according to the terms of such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under subsection (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of
compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or
elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act,
1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall
be liable to registration under that Act.
11A. Period within which an award shall be made. - (1) The
Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of
two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and
if no award is made within that period, the entire proceeding for
the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been
published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the award shall be made
within a period of two years from such commencement.
10.1 Section 24 of the Act, 2013 is extracted as under:
24. Land acquisition process under Act No.