“Land Acquisition Dispute: Allahabad High Court Upholds Petitioner’s Right Under Act of 2013”
Case Title: Chandrabhan Yadav v. State of UP &2 Ors.
Case No: WRIT – C No. – 18397 of 2018
Decided on: 10th January, 2024
CORAM: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, Acting Chief Justice, and Hon’ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner contests the Sant Kabir Nagar Collector/District Magistrate’s order dated July 8, 2018, which denied their request to submit a disagreement over the increase in land acquisition compensation to the Authority in accordance with Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner’s land was purchased in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894; possession was obtained on June 6, 2012, and an award was made on December 26, 2014. In a prior writ case, the petitioner challenged the award, claiming it was in violation of the Act of 2013. The petitioner argues that the Act of 2013 is relevant in spite of the Collector’s denial, pointing to Section 24(1)(a). In favour of the petitioner, the court decides, citing an earlier writ judgement, directing the Collector to submit the issue to the Authority for compensation augmentation within three weeks.
Legal Provisions
The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 are the two main legislative statutes at issue in this case. The land that the petitioner had obtained under the Act of 1894 was in doubt until the Collector’s award on December 26, 2014, was made. In contesting the award, the petitioner argued that the Act of 2013’s guiding principles were not adhered to. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, which specifies that all Act of 2013 provisions pertaining to the assessment of compensation will apply in the absence of an award granted under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, is at the centre of the important legal dispute. In its ruling, the court notes Section 64, which allows the petitioner to request reference under the Act of 2013, and highlights the application of Section 24(1)(a) even if possession was obtained under the previous Act. In the end, the court overturns the contested decision and gives the Collector three weeks to submit the disagreement to the Authority for an increase in compensation.
Issues
The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and its interaction with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013 are the major legal concerns in the matter at hand. The petitioner contests the Collector’s decision to deny their request to send the compensation issue to the Authority in accordance with Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The main point of dispute is whether the Act of 2013’s provisions apply in this case, as the land was obtained under the Act of 1894, possession was obtained in 2012, and an award was made in 2014. The petitioner contends that the Act of 2013’s Section 24(1)(a) requires its applicability in situations in which no award under the Act of 1894 has been made prior to January 1, 2014. The court further examines whether the Collector’s denial under the old Act was lawful, and it highlights the petitioner’s entitlement to request a referral under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which was previously upheld in a writ case. Citing the application of the Act of 2013 and the finality of the prior court ruling, the court eventually quashes the impugned order and directs the Collector to send the matter to the Authority.
Courts analysis and decision
Under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013), the petitioner in this case challenges the Collector’s order denying their application to submit a compensation issue to the Authority. Citing Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, the petitioner contends that even if possession was obtained in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Act of 2013 nonetheless applies. The petitioner has been granted permission by the court, which emphasises that the Act of 2013 applies because the award was given after January 1, 2014. The petitioner’s entitlement to request a referral under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 is confirmed by the court, which rejects the Collector’s reliance on possession under the prior Act. Emphasising the finality of the prior court ruling allowing the petitioner to seek reference, the court quashes the impugned order and directs the Collector to refer the case to the Authority. The ruling emphasises that the petitioner’s entitlement to request a referral under the Act of 2013 is unaffected by the State’s payment of compensation under the previous Act.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari