LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when the award is passed after the repeal of the Act and the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Hori Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: February 5, 2019
Date of the Judgment: February 5, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 108
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.
When land is acquired under the old law, but the compensation is decided after the new law is in effect, which law applies? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition for the Varanasi Bypass. The core issue was whether the compensation should be determined based on the old Land Acquisition Act of 1894 or the new Right to Fair Compensation Act of 2013, particularly when the award was passed after the 2013 Act came into force. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case involves the acquisition of land belonging to the appellant, Hori Lal, by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the construction of the Varanasi Bypass. The initial notification for acquisition was issued on October 30, 2002, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State invoked the urgency clause under Section 17, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. A declaration under Section 6 followed on November 29, 2003. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on June 30, 2016, after the 1894 Act was repealed and replaced by the 2013 Act, which came into force on January 1, 2014.
The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings and the award in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the proceedings had lapsed due to the repeal of the 1894 Act. However, during the hearing, the appellant conceded that he was not challenging the acquisition and confined his challenge to the determination of compensation. The State contended that the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014, as per Section 113 of the 2013 Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the appellant liberty to seek a reference for determination of compensation under the 2013 Act.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 30, 2002 | Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for land acquisition. |
| November 29, 2003 | Declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| January 1, 2014 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, repealing the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| June 30, 2016 | Land Acquisition Officer passed the award determining compensation. |
| March 9, 2017 | Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition. |
| February 5, 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially challenged the entire acquisition proceeding in the Allahabad High Court, including the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the award dated June 30, 2016. However, during the hearing, the appellant limited his challenge to the manner and quantum of compensation. The State relied on Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, arguing that compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the appellant to seek a reference for compensation under the 2013 Act.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around two main statutes:
- The Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This Act governed land acquisition in India before the enactment of the 2013 Act. It provided the procedures for acquiring land for public purposes and determining compensation. Section 4 of the Act deals with the publication of a preliminary notification for acquisition of land. Section 17 allows for the invocation of an urgency clause, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. Section 6 deals with the declaration of the intended acquisition.
- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This Act replaced the 1894 Act and introduced new provisions for fair compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. The Act came into force on January 1, 2014. Section 113 of the Act deals with the determination of compensation for land acquired under the old Act.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that since the award was passed on June 30, 2016, after the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the entire acquisition proceedings should be considered lapsed.
- The appellant contended that the compensation should be determined based on the market value of the land as of the date when the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award, i.e., June 30, 2016.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The State argued that the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014, as per the order of the Central Government under Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- The State contended that the appellant was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, even though the acquisition was initiated under the 1894 Act.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Acquisition Proceedings |
|
|
| Date for Determining Compensation |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition, and if so, whether the reasoning of the High Court is legal, just, and proper.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? | Yes | The High Court was correct in holding that the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014, as per the State’s stand and Section 113 of the 2013 Act. |
| Whether the reasoning of the High Court is legal, just, and proper? | Yes | The High Court’s reasoning was found to be in line with the provisions of the 2013 Act and the stand taken by the State. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s argument that the compensation should be based on the date of the award. |
Authorities
The Court did not rely on any specific case laws or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the issuance of a preliminary notification for land acquisition.
- Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section allows the government to invoke an urgency clause, dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A.
- Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the declaration of intended acquisition.
- Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section provides the mechanism for determining compensation for land acquired under the old Act.
| Authority | Type | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Legal Provision | Mentioned as the basis for the initial notification for acquisition. |
| Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Legal Provision | Mentioned as the basis for invoking the urgency clause. |
| Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Legal Provision | Mentioned as the provision under which the declaration for acquisition was made. |
| Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Legal Provision | Relied upon by the State and accepted by the Court as the basis for determining compensation. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| The acquisition proceedings lapsed due to repeal of the 1894 Act. | Appellant | The Court did not address this argument as the appellant had given up this challenge in the High Court. |
| Compensation should be based on the date of the award (June 30, 2016). | Appellant | Rejected. The Court held that this date had no basis in either the old or the new Act. |
| Compensation should be based on the market value as of January 1, 2014, as per Section 113 of the 2013 Act. | Respondent | Accepted. The Court upheld the State’s stand that the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court acknowledged the relevance of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894* in initiating the acquisition process.
- The Court noted the State’s invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894* for dispensing with the inquiry.
- The Court recognized the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894*.
- The Court accepted the State’s reliance on Section 113 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013* as the basis for determining compensation, stating that the appellant was entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, taking 01.01.2014 as the base date.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the State’s acceptance of January 1, 2014, as the base date for determining compensation under the 2013 Act and the fact that the appellant had given up the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized that the date for determining compensation should be as per the relevant statute, and the date of the award had no basis in law. The Court also highlighted that the appellant was entitled to get the compensation re-determined by the competent authority under the 2013 Act.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| State’s acceptance of 01.01.2014 as base date | 40% |
| Appellant’s challenge to acquisition proceedings was given up | 30% |
| Date of award has no basis in law | 20% |
| Appellant’s entitlement to re-determination of compensation | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal provisions and the State’s stand, with less emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The legal considerations weighed more heavily in the decision-making process.
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition?
State’s Stand: Compensation to be determined as per the 2013 Act, taking 01.01.2014 as the base date.
Appellant’s Argument: Compensation should be based on the date of the award.
Court’s Reasoning: The date of the award has no basis in law. The State’s stand aligns with Section 113 of the 2013 Act.
Conclusion: High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
The Court considered the appellant’s argument that the compensation should be determined based on the date of the award. However, the Court rejected this argument because neither the old Act nor the new Act provided for such a date. The Court emphasized that the compensation should be determined according to the provisions of the relevant Act, and the State’s acceptance of January 1, 2014, as the base date was in line with Section 113 of the 2013 Act.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“Indeed, once the State took a defense in this case that the compensation in the case of the appellant would be determined keeping in view 01.01.2014 to be the date as the basis, the appellant should feel satisfied with this stand.”
“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.”
“We, therefore, find no good ground to take a different view than what was taken by the High Court in the impugned order.”
Key Takeaways
- When land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the award is passed after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into force, the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014, as per Section 113 of the 2013 Act.
- The date of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not the relevant date for determining compensation under either the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act.
- Landowners are entitled to have their compensation re-determined by the competent authority under the 2013 Act, even if the acquisition was initiated under the 1894 Act.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant would be entitled to get the compensation re-determined by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2013, as per the liberty granted by the High Court in the impugned order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that when land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the award is passed after the new Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force, the compensation should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014, as per Section 113 of the 2013 Act. This clarifies the applicability of the new Act in cases where the acquisition process straddles both the old and new laws.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act but awarded after the 2013 Act came into force should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014. The Court emphasized that the date of the award was not relevant for determining compensation under either Act. The appellant was granted the liberty to have the compensation re-determined by the competent authority under the 2013 Act.
Category
Parent category: Land Acquisition
Child category: Compensation
Child category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Parent category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child category: Section 113, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Parent category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child category: Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child category: Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child category: Section 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
FAQ
Q: What happens if my land was acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, but the compensation was decided after the new law came into effect?
A: The compensation will be determined based on the market value of your land as of January 1, 2014, as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Q: Is the date of the compensation award important for determining the compensation amount?
A: No, the date of the award is not the relevant date for determining compensation. The relevant date is January 1, 2014, if the award is passed after the 2013 Act came into force.
Q: Can I get my compensation re-determined if I think it’s not fair?
A: Yes, you are entitled to have your compensation re-determined by the competent authority under the 2013 Act, even if the acquisition was initiated under the old 1894 Act.