Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 29A -- National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G – Lapse of time for arbitration award – Extension of time -- Section 3G of the National Highways Act is pending adjudication before the learned Arbitrator -- Period of 12 months in terms of Section 29A(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 stands elapsed -- Period specified u/s 29A(3) of the Act is also over, hence, the ld. Arbitrator has closed the proceedings in view of termination of his mandate – Time extended for six months for passing the award by taking recourse of Section 29A(4).

(Para 2-4)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 18 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24 – Lapse of acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Award u/s 11 of the Act, was passed on 23.03.2007 and the reference petition u/s 18 of the Act was decided on 25.09.2013, whereas, the New Act came into force on 01.01.2014 – Even at the time of decision of the Reference Petition, by the learned Reference Court, New Act had not come into force -- Legislature, in its wisdom, has used the term ‘award’ u/s 11 of the Act, in Section 24 of the New Act -- The arguments, qua applicability of the New Act, regarding the land acquired, do not hold water, rejected.

(Para 26-29)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquisition of land – Right of subsequent purchaser – Adverse possession – Plea of -- Award was announced on 22.01.1992 -- Possession of the acquired land including the disputed land was taken over by HSVP vide Rapat dated 26.01.1992 -- Petitioner purchased the disputed land vide sale deed dated 15.04.1997 -- Sale transaction after finalization of the acquisition proceedings would not confer any right or benefit on the petitioner -- Any transaction thereafter would be void ab initio – Petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the plea of adverse possession once he claims ownership/ title on the basis of sale deed -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Land acquisition case – Compensation – Limitation -- Whether taking over of possession of the land way back in the year 1969 disentitles the petitioners from claiming compensation – Held, no amount of delay can come in the way of the petitioners to approach this Court for enforcement of their constitutional right to property – Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the award already passed by the Collector – Writ petition allowed.

(Para 14-23)

B. Constitution of India, Article 31, 300A, 370 – Right to property – Delay in claiming compensation -- Right to property was a fundamental right in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir prior to abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, as such, it cannot be stated that the petitioners have waived their right to property – At present, the right to property may not be a fundamental right, but it is certainly a Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- Even if the right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right, still then it continues to be a legal and constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law -- Denial of this right to a person constitutes a continuing cause of action and, therefore, no amount of delay and laches would extinguish the right to property of a person.

(Para 18)

C. Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27 -- Adverse possession by State – Permissibility of -- State cannot claim adverse possession in respect of the property belonging to private persons -- Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the property in question has vested in them because of their long possession over the same.

(Para 19)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 -- Reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Limitation – Purpose of giving 6 months, when limitation in a particular reference is covered by the second part of Section 18(2)(b) of 1894 Act, is that once the landowner gets knowledge of the award, he could make sincere efforts to get a copy of the award and then accordingly make a reference -- Knowledge of the award was obtained on 08.02.2007 with receipt of compensation, reference was made in 2010 only without there being much on record to justify this long delay – It is obligatory for the reference Court to determine whether a reference petition is within limitation or not – Reference dismissed on the ground of limitation – Appeal dismissed devoid of merits.

(Para 13-15)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 -- Reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Limitation – Law summarised :

i) "The date of the award" used in the Section 18(2)(b) must be the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. [“Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition officer”, reported as AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1500]

ii) Date on which compensation was received can be conclusively taken as the date of knowledge of award and application for a reference has to be made within six months from this date. [“State of Punjab v. Mst Qaisar Jehan Begum and another”, reported as AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1604]

iii) Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award can be established by the Collector by proving that the person interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the acquired land. [“Bhagwan Das & Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.”, reported in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1532]

iv) The purpose of giving 6 months, when limitation in a particular reference is covered by the second part of Section 18(2)(b), is that once the landowner gets knowledge of the award, he could make sincere efforts to get a copy of the award and then accordingly make a reference application. [“Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr.”, reported as AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1624]

v) Making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to Section 18, sub-Section (2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector and therefore, it is the duty of reference Court to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under Section 18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. [“Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra” reported as (1979) 2 SCC 572]

(Para 16)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Three different revenue estates – As a whole towards north, the acquired land abuts already developed Industrial Area, whereas on the Southern side, there is Yamuna Nagar – Jagadhari Corporation building and the eastern side portion abuts the State Highway with number of industrial and commercial units existing in the adjoining vicinity -- Three revenue estates forming part of the acquisition proceedings in the case cannot be treated differently.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Agreement to sell – Reliance upon -- Registered agreement to sell duly proved on record -- Agreement in question besides the sale consideration mentioned therein being bona fide and genuine was required to be taken count.

(Para 16)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Old sale deed – Increase upon -- There has been a difference of around 10 to 12 months between the three sale deeds and the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act, an appropriate increase of 12% needs to be applied.

(Para 18)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23, 28 -- Market value of acquired land – Agreement to sell for land measuring 73 kanals 01 marla of land -- As per the agreement, the sale consideration was Rs. 96 lakh per acre – Land under acquisition as a contiguous unit was touching the Industrial Area, Phase-I developed by the appellant-HSIIDC, from one side and the National Highway 73-A on the other, all basic amenities, such as water, electricity, sewerage etc., besides other necessary infrastructure were already existing in the close vicinity of the acquired land and was just required to be expanded further for the purpose of development of Phase-II, Industrial Estate -- Besides considering the locational and potential value of the same, a cut of 20% instead of 40-45% was more than sufficient – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 54,65,600/- per acre, besides grant of all other statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) of the Act as well as interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

(Para 19, 20)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 28A – Land acquisition case -- Re-determination of the amount of compensation -- When application u/s 28-A of the Act was within limitation, it was obligatory for the LAC to keep the decision pending on the application until the final determination by the higher Courts.

(Para 9)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 28A, 34 – Land acquisition case -- Re-determination of the amount of compensation -- In an application filed u/s 28-A of the Act, landowners are entitled for grant of interest in accordance with Section 34 thereof i.e. from the date of taking possession and not from the date of making application u/s 28-A of the Act.

(Para 10)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 -- Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Delay of 5190 days in appeal – Condonation of delay -- By applying the principle of parity, the land owners/applicants being similarly situated, are entitled for grant of similar amount of compensation, however, without any payment of interest for the period they failed to approach the Court after the decision in the reference Court – Delay of 5190 days in filing the appeal condoned -- Appellants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the appeal i.e. 5190 days.

(Para 1, 2)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ of mandamus -- Acquisition of land -- Petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 1500 square yards, only 1000 square yards acquired -- Now petitioner is sought to be dispossessed, gave representation – Estate Officer directed to examine the representation and take a decision and pass a speaking order within four weeks after examining the necessary revenue records and the acquisition record after giving notice to petitioner to put in an appearance and submit all necessary documents in support of his claim -- Till the decision, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.

(Para 1-7)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11, 12(2), 18 -- Acquisition of land – Award of Collector -- Delay in Reference – Dismissal on limitation -- Power of Reference Court -- Reference u/s 18 of the 1894 Act, involves substantial rights of the landowners, the same can only be declined on the point of limitation, in case, the Reference Court finds that the landowner was either present or represented before the Land Acquisition Collector, at the time of announcement of the award or notice u/s 12(2) of the 1894 Act was ever served upon him, informing him about the contents of the award.

(Para 9)

A. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(a), 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 17(1) -- Urgency provision of Land Acquisition 1894 Act invoked – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Provision does not visualize a situation, where possession has been taken, under the urgency provision of Section 17(1) of the 'Act of 1894', but award has not been made -- Therefore, in such a situation, there is no lapse of the entire proceedings but compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 'Act of 2013'.

(Para 10)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(a), 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 17(1) – Award – Compensation under 2013 Act -- Though no award stricto sensu has been made in terms of Section 11 of the 'Act of 1894', but when 80 per-centum of the compensation has been determined, under, an award made by the competent Authority, and the same disbursed to them – Land owners concerned not entitled to the mandate of sub section (1) (a) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 -- Remaining 20 per cent of compensation be forthwith released to the land owners alongwith interest in terms of the relevant statutory provisions, as carried in the 'Act of 1894'.

(Para 10-13)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Possession of built-up area not taken – Deemed lapse of acquisition of whole land – Permissibility of -- Considering the fact that except the 3 biswa land comprised which was not taken due to built-up, the possession of the other lands in question was taken over by the Government on 29.01.2010, there shall be no deemed lapse with respect to the entire acquisition of the lands in question u/s 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

(Para 5)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Deemed lapse of acquisition of land – Permissibility of – Physical possession of the subject land has been taken over and in fact the subject land has been put to use by the beneficiary department for construction of Bankner Link Drain which has been duly built, there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition with regard to the subject land.

(Para 3)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Compensation for unacquired land -- Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Deemed acquisition of land -- Notification u/s 4 issued on 17.05.1996 u/s 1894 Act was permitted to lapse – Owners of the land used by the State for construction of the road shall be entitled to the compensation for their lands which have been used by the State without acquisition – 17.05.1996 treated as a deemed acquisition, considering the fact that there was a huge delay of 20 years in filing the writ petition before the High Court, original writ petitioners held entitled to all the statutory benefits which may be available under the Act, 1894 from 17.05.1996, however they shall not be entitled to any interest under the Act, 1894 from 17.05.1996 to the date of filing of the writ petition.

(Para 5, 6)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100-A -- Land Acquisition case – Maintainability of Letter Patent Appeal – Appeal lies to High Court against an Award and from the decree of High Court an appeal lies to the Supreme Court – Section 100-A was incorporated on 01.07.2002 – Appeals which have been filed before 01.07.2002 would not affect the accrued right of appeal vested in a suitor, who had actually filed the appeal before the said date, but those who had yet to file the appeal on or after 01.07.2002 would not be entitled to maintain the same – Though the appeals were originally filed on 05.04.2002, but various objections were raised by the office -- Appeals were then finally filed on 17.07.2002 -- Appeals were never complete in all prospects and filed after 01.07.2002 and listed for the first time before the Bench on 22.07.2002 – LPA not maintainable, dismissed.

(Para 4-10)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Acquisition of land – Market value of land – Express highway – Small land exemplar -- Deduction for development -- Land acquired for the construction of a new Expressway which would require not just laying of the roads but also providing several amenities through the highway and also creation of service roads, flyovers, underpass to townships across such highway -- Land is also to be left as a divider to bifurcate the two-way roads -- Sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied on – Deduction towards development cost at 25 per cent of the value taken into consideration.

(Para 21)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Acquisition of land – Excess payment to land losers -- actus curiae neminem gravabit -- Rs.33,60,000/- assessed as market value of land – Amount paid to the land losers – Now market value determined @ Rs.25,20,000/- per acre -- Though it is not a mistake of the Court, it has led to the present situation due to the act of the Court -- Appropriate to invoke the principle of ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ -- Balance ordered to be refunded in three half-yearly instalments, free of interest -- However, if the amount is not refunded within the time period as provided, the same shall thereafter carry interest at 9% p.a. and the respondent-HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same, including the right to make recovery as arrears of land revenue.

(Para 21-23)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Acquisition of land – Market value of land – Assessment of -- Value of earlier acquired land as base – Cumulative increase of 10% per annum -- Lands acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008, compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre was assessed -- Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre can be said to be the base -- Considering the time gap between 2008 notification and 2010 notification, 10% increase per annum accepted -- Market value for the lands acquired vide notification dated 13.01.2010 assessed at Rs. 2,87,98,000/- per acre along with all other statutory benefits.

(Para 6-8)

A. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act – Possession report and Panchnama – Writ petitioner was not recorded owner -- Effect of -- When the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings and the same was handed over to the DDA and that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and therefore there was no question of tendering any compensation to him at the relevant time -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.

(Para 3)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act – Dispute with respect to ownership -- Petitioner claiming 1/12th share in the land in question -- High Court entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1–writ petitioner and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed -- For entertaining any writ petition the ownership and title has to be first established and proved and only thereafter a person claiming ownership and title can be permitted to file the writ petition challenging the acquisition/lapse of acquisition proceedings -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

(Para 4)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Possession by Panchnama and Possession report – Permissibly of -- High Court declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed u/s 24(2) of 2013 Act – Held, impugned judgment and order is contrary to the law laid down in the Constitution Bench decision, Indore Development Authority’s case (2020) 8 SCC 129 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15233 -- Possession of the land in question taken over by the DDA through LAC/ L&B Department by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession report, which is permissible -- Impugned judgment and order set aside.

(Para 1-5)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Constitution of India, Article 300-A -- Temporary acquisition of land -- Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years -- ONGC using land for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner – It would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(Para 7)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11A -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Subsequent purchaser -- Locus standi -- Original writ petitioner before High is a subsequent purchaser -- Petitioner claimed rights on the basis of the Assignment Deed of 2015 -- Notification u/s 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980 and the award was declared on 05.06.1987 – High Court committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the original writ petitioner and declaring that the acquisition deemed to have lapsed u/s 24(2) of the Act, 2013 -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Lapse of acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary -- Any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

(Para 3)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Lapse of acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Subsequent purchasers -- Original writ petitioners are subsequent purchasers, High Court ought not to have entertained challenging the acquisition proceedings and/or praying for lapse of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 4, 5)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Constitution of India, Article 136, 226 -- Acquisition of land – Delay in reference u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act – Limitation – Condonation of delay -- Limitation for making reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 cannot be extended and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable – Present case is not the case of condoning the delay in exercise of powers u/s 5 of the Limitation Act -- Appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings which ended on the dismissal of the SLP vide order dated 11.4.2013 and thereafter pursuant to the liberty reserved by the High Court, within a period of six months from the date of dismissal of the SLP i.e., on 1.7.2013, the original landowners filed reference application u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 – Impugned judgment and order dismissing the writ petition/reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 as barred by limitation quashed and set aside -- Matter remitted to the reference court to decide the reference on merits.

(Para 10)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11, 23, 24 -- Assessment of market value of acquired land – 1/3 deduction towards development – Permissibility of -- Lands in question acquired for excavation of coal -- Since the entire land is to be mined and the coal is to be excavated, there is no wastage of land on account of any developmental activities such as roads, sewage lines, parks etc. -- In that view of the matter, there is no development required and therefore 1/3rd deduction is not warranted at all.

(Para 6.2)

A. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(3) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Rights of subsequent purchaser – Subsequent purchaser/ Acquired interest in the lands subsequently not having any right to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings u/s 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

(Para 7.1)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(3) -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings -- There cannot be any lapse of acquisition u/s 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground of possession could not be taken over by the authority and/or the compensation could not be deposited / tendered due to the pending litigations.

(Para 7.2)

A. Pith and substance -- Orders passed by the Courts, and particularly by Supreme Court, are required to be understood on their pith and substance while avoiding an approach of technicalities.

(Para 14)

B. Acquisition of land -- Compensation to land losers -- When the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities.

(Para 14)

A. Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (34 of 2002), Section 15(1)(2) -- Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, Rule 5 -- Acquisition of land – Objections invited from land-owners before notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 -- Enquiry conducted as required u/s 15(2) and after considering the objections and having been satisfied that the land is required for the purpose of Highways Department, the notification u/s 15(1) of the Act, 2001 issued – High Court was right in observing that there is a substantial compliance of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 read with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 -- Non-filing of a statement by way of answer to the objections by the Highways Department and/or non-furnishing the copy of the same to the original land owners shall not vitiate the entire process of acquisition process and/or the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act, 2001 -- Acquisition, upheld.

(Para 5-8)

B. Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (34 of 2002), Section 15(2) -- Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003, Rule 5 -- Acquisition of land – Validity of Rule 5 of Tamil Nadu Highways Rules, 2003 -- Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act

(Para 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 54, 64, 66, 89, 90 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18 – Constitution of India, Article 300A -- Auction sale -- Setting aside of – Acquisition of land by Improvement Trust – Trust failed to pay compensation assessed by Reference Court – In Execution, Trust not appeared despite service of notice – Ex-parte warrant for sale of attached property issued and property sold to auction purchaser – No material irregularity or fraud causing substantial injury to Trust established – Objector neither deposited the decreetal amount nor the amount equal to 5% of the purchase amount for payment to the auction purchaser as is required under Order XXI Rule 89 of the said Code – Though the right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- A person can be deprived of the rights of the property only in a manner known to law -- Acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question sought to deprive the owners of their land which had to be paid for in terms of the provisions of the LA Act -- Executing Court’s order affirmed, with cost of Rs. 1 lac.

(Para 5-11, 30-39)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23, 54 – Acquisition of land – Market value of similarly situated land enhanced – Right of left over land-owners -- While determining the amount of compensation @ Rs. 7,80,000/- per acre, the High Court relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Kapoor Singh’s case – In another case High Court determined the compensation at Rs. 19,85,700/- per acre, relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Surjit Singh’s case – Supreme Court in Kapoor Singh’s case & Surjit Singh’s case enhanced the amount of compensation by a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre with interest and solatium as prescribed under the Statute from the date of the orders passed by the High Court – Landowners in appeals are similarly situated – Therefore, the present appeals are also required to be disposed of in terms of the decision in the cases of Kapoor Singh & Surjit Singh, by enhancing the amount of compensation by a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre respectively – Original landowners also entitled to solatium as prescribed under the statute on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of orders passed by the High Court – There is a substantial delay in preferring the first appeals -- Original landowners-claimants shall not be entitled to interest from the date of the orders passed by the High Court till filing of the appeals before Supreme Court. 

(Para 2-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 1, 2, 3, 4 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 54 – Land acquisition case – Appeal to High Court -- Death of defendant/ respondent -- Non-bringing on record the legal representatives – Abetment of appeal -- High Court has mechanically and without holding any further enquiry simply dismissed the entire appeal as having abated due to non-bringing on record the legal representatives of some of the respondents/ the original defendants who, as such, neither contested the suit nor filed the written statements -- When the original plaintiffs/two co-owners instituted the suit with respect to the entire suit land jointly owned by the plaintiffs as well as defendants nos. 9 to 39 and when some of the defendants/respondents in appeal died, it can be said that estate is represented by others, more particularly the plaintiffs/heirs of the plaintiffs and it cannot be said that on not bringing the legal representatives of the some of the co-sharers/ defendants/ respondents in appeal the appeal would abate as a whole -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal as a whole as having abated set aside -- High Court to consider the Appeal in accordance with law and on its own merits.

(Para 9.4-10)

A. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26, 27, 28, 31(3) – Acquisition of land under National Highway Act -- Market value and compensation for acquired land -- Determination of -- Ld. Arbitrator in cases for determination of market value and compensation should indicate reasons since the same will have to be arrived at on a comparative analysis for which the reasons should be recorded and Section 26 to 28 of RFCTLARR Act will be relevant -- Neither the land loser nor the exchequer should suffer in the matter of just and fair compensation -- Hence the reasons under Section 31(3) is to be expected in that manner, the absence of which will call for interference u/s 34 of Act, 1996.

(Para 23)

B. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26, 27, 28, 31(3) – Acquisition of land under National Highway Act -- Market value and compensation for acquired land -- Determination of – Award of Arbitrator – Challenge to – Scope of -- While examining the award in the limited scope u/s 34 of Act, 1996, the Court is required to take note as to whether the evidence available on record has been adverted to and has been taken note by the Arbitrator in determining the just compensation failing which it will fall foul of Section 31(3) and amount to patent illegality -- While examining the award within the parameters permissible u/s 34 of Act, 1996 and while examining the determination of compensation as provided u/s 26 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion.

(Para 24)

C. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26, 27, 28, 31(3) – Acquisition of land under National Highway Act -- Market value and compensation for acquired land -- Award of Arbitrator – Error in award – Scope u/s 34 and 37 of Arbitration Act, 1996 -- It would not be possible for the Court entertaining the petition u/s 34 or for the appellate court u/s 37 of Act 1996 to modify the award and alter the compensation as it was open to the court in the reference proceedings u/s 18 of the old Land Acquisition Act or an appeal u/s 54 of that act, it should certainly be open to the court exercising power u/s 34 of Act, 1996 to set aside the award by indicating reasons and remitting the matter to the Arbitrator to reconsider the same in accordance with law in terms of Section 34(4)

(Para 24, 40)

D. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26, 27, 28, 31(3) – Acquisition of land under National Highway Act -- Market value and compensation for acquired land -- Assessment of -- Where a document which is proximal to the date of acquisition is not available, it would be open to rely on a document which is much prior in point of time and if the time gap is more, determination could be made by providing for reasonable escalation depending on the area wherein the acquired property is situate and nature of property -- Similarly, in a circumstance where no document which is prior to the date of the acquisition notification is available and the exemplars are subsequent to the date of acquisition notification, the value therein could be noted and reasonable de-escalation be considered to determine the appropriate value -- No strait-jacket formula can be applicable to all cases with arithmetical precision in the matter of determination of compensation.

(Para 32)

E. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Sections 26, 27, 28, 31(3) – Acquisition of land under National Highway Act -- Market value and compensating for acquired land -- Patent illegality in award -- Ld. Arbitrator has committed patent illegality in applying two different notifications in determining the market value -- Only course open is to set aside the award and allow the ld. Arbitrator to reconsider the matter.

(Para 48)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3(H)(4) -- Acquisition of land under National Highway Act, 1956 – Apportionment of compensation on the basis of agreement to sell – Right of -- Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, enables any person interested in the compensation, to file an application to the competent authority with a request to forward the dispute with regard to entitlement or apportionment to the Principal Civil Court -- Petitioners may apply to the competent authority under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- Revision disposed of.

(Para 4-7)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Acquisition of land – Assessment of market value of land – Challenge to – Writ jurisdiction -- Arbitrator has been conferred with the same powers as are available to the Reference Court appointed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- Since such matter lies within the domain of the Arbitrator which is the statutory Arbitrator Court considered it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy before the Arbitrator.

(Para 2-5)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 5A, 6, 16, 17  -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act -- Twin conditions have to be satisfied before proceedings can be said to be lapsed i.e., possession not taken and/or compensation not paid – Vesting of title in the Government is complete immediately upon taking of possession, and the acquired land becomes the property of the State u/s 16 and 17 of the Act without any condition or limitation either as to title or possession -- Once panchnama had been drawn of taking possession, thereafter re-entry or retaining the possession is that of the trespasser.

(Para 29, 30)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 5A, 6 – Acquisition of land – Non-filing of objections – Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- Since the original land owner never filed any objections u/s 5-A of the Act, 1894 the purchaser cannot seek the relief which was not available even to the original land owner.

(Para 37)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 5A, 6 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act -- Possession of land was taken by the Appellant and the compensation was paid -- Argument that in terms of the impugned orders of the High Court, the purchaser had deposited Rs.16,61,774/-, therefore, the acquisition stand lapsed – Purchaser cannot take shelter of the order, which had no legal value and stands nullified -- Even otherwise, there could not be any direction to deposit the amount now after more than 25 years -- Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of the amount subsequent to orders of the High Court.

(Para 39)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 5A, 6 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act – Right of purchaser – Purchaser is not entitled to any declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings on the ground that it has purchased the land after vesting of the land with the State and the possession has been taken of the land measuring 28 Bigha 8 Biswa and the compensation has also been deposited in respect of entire land, though the compensation in respect of land admeasuring 12 Bigha 18 Biswa was disbursed.

(Para 42)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings -- Subsequent purchaser – Right of -- Respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/s 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector -- Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

(Para 8)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11 -- Lapse of land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act -- Compensation not offered to the land owners -- Finding of High Court that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is not tenable – Order passed by the High Court set aside -- Writ petition filed by the respondent dismissed. Manoharlal’s case (2020) 8 SCC 129 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15233 relied.

(Para 8-10)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3(E) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Demolition of shops and residence – Damages for – Writ jurisdiction -- Non-following of procedure as envisaged under Section 3(E) of The NH Act, 1956 alleged -- Since demolition had already taken place and damages are being prayed for, an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners by way of leading evidence -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of their grievances.

(Para 1, 5-7)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Acquisition of land -- Market value of acquired land – Assessment of -- Reliance upon market value of land subsequent to notification – Held, though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification.

(Para 15)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3H – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Acquisition of land -- Payment of amount of compensation – Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioners claim that as per the revenue record, the petitioners and respondent no.8 and 9 are co-sharers, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the rateable distribution -- Held, such dispute is required to be adjudicated by the Civil Court on an application which may be filed by the person aggrieved before the competent authority for referring the matter to the Principal Civil Court –Arbitrator has not adjudicated upon inter-se dispute between the petitioners as well as respondent no.8 and 9 -- Such being the position, the petitioners have an efficacious statutory alternative remedy -- Petitioners relegated to the alternative remedy.

(Para 2-7)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11,18, 23 – Acquisition of large chunk of land – Market value of – Exemplar sale deed in square feet/Small piece of land -- Reliance upon -- Small plots/parcels of land cannot offer the same market value as when a large tract of land is purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser -- Generally the sale instances with respect to small plots/parcels of land are not comparable to a large extent of land for the purpose of determining the compensation -- As a general rule, the compensation shall not be determined on square foot basis -- Court may determine the compensation on square foot basis after making a reasonable deduction towards development charges, in case there are no other sale instances available.

(Para 6)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11,18, 23 – Acquisition of large chunk of land – Market value of – Exemplar sale deed in square feet/Small piece of land -- Reliance upon – 40% deduction towards development charges allowed – Grounds: firstly, the land acquired in question is a large extent of land (45 Hectares 89 R); secondly, it was an agricultural land not fully developed; thirdly, the landowner having not filed any exemplar sale deed relating to large pieces of land sold in acres to prove the market value of the acquired land; and fourthly, exemplars relied upon by the landowner pertain to very small plots/parcels of land and that too, in respect of small plots which were developed and converted to non-agricultural use and the distinguishing features noticed in the land in sale deeds are not present in the acquired land.

(Para 7)

A. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G(1)(2)(5) -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 30, 80 – Acquisition of land – Statutory benefits – Solatium – Interest thereupon -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Requirement of – Writ jurisdiction -- Arbitrator can proceed to decide the entitlement with regard to statutory benefits, however, in any other eventuality, where the land owners do not dispute the correctness of the market value determined by the competent authority under sub section 1 or 2 of Section 3G of the 1956 Act, then, they cannot be forced to apply for appointment of Arbitrator only for the purpose of payment of the amount of statutory benefits -- In a case arising on an application filed under Section 28-A of Act, 1894, the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Pushpavadhi and ors., (2018) 3 SCC 28 held that the Writ Court is competent to order payment of the statutory interest -- Writ allowed, respondents directed to pay solatium amount equivalent to one hundred percent of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority under sub section (1) and (2) of Section 3G of the 1956 Act after adjusting the amount already paid -- Respondents shall also pay the amount with interest in accordance with Section 80 of the 2013 Act within two months.

(Para 7-9)

B. National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G(1)(2)(5) -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 30 – Acquisition of land -- Solatium – Eminent Domain -- Solatium amount is paid on account of compulsory acquisition of the land -- This compensation is paid by the government for involuntary taking over the land of an owner -- Such power of the government is in accordance with the doctrine of 'Eminent Domain'.

(Para 7)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquisition of land – Award by Arbitrator – Writ jurisdiction -- Competent authority assessed the amount of compensation, matter referred to arbitrator for re-assessment -- As per sub-section 6 of Section 3G the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the Act -- Objections to the award of the Arbitrator are maintainable before the District Court -- Court did not find it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

(Para 2-6)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Acquisition of land – Challenge to -- Major chunk of the land released -- Petitioners case is not different from those land owners whose land already stood released -- Purpose for which the land was acquired is already vitiated as the proposed plan for which the land was acquired cannot be fulfilled by retaining the land of the petitioners -- Hence, denying to the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice -- Action of the State in declining their prayer for release of their respective acquired land is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Petitions allowed.

(Para 13)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 -- Notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act – Challenge by subsequent purchaser –Petitioners having purchased the land in question after issuance of respective Notifications u/s 4 of the Act of 1984, petitions deserve to be dismissed.

(Para 26)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11 – Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – 2013 Acquisition Act came in to force – Effect of -- Once the award has been approved, compensation has been paid thereunder and possession of the land has been handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been reopened, including by way of re-notification of the already acquired land u/s 4 of the L.A. Act by the Government -- Question of lapsing u/s 24 of the L.A. Act could not have arisen in this case once the award was approved on 05.03.2010 -- By disagreeing with the High Court’s reliance on the letters to nullify the original award and allow fresh acquisition proceedings in respect of the first respondent’s land which had already been acquired and has been under the possession of the appellant since 11.06.2010, the appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside. Indore Development Authority’s case (2020) 8 SCC 129 relied.

(Para 17, 18)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 5A, 6 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – Non-filing of objections – Effect of -- Petitioner not having filed objections, the prayer for the quashing the notification u/s 4 LAA and the declaration under Section 6 LAA, cannot be granted.

(Para 21)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24, 101 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land under 1894, Act – Denotification of land -- Application moved for withdrawal writ petition with liberty to approach the respondent-State by way of filing representation u/s 101A of the Act, 2013 for de-notifying their land – After vesting of land in the State, the land owners cease to have any right over the land in dispute especially when the acquisition proceedings have been upheld in the earlier round of litigation and no liberty can be given as the same would not be in consonance with the settled law.

(Para 2-4, 25, 26)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land under 1894 Act in 2008 -- Release of un-utilized land – Right of – Petitioners had admitted the payment of compensation -- Relief claimed by the petitioner is suffering from delay -- Case of the petitioners is not covered even u/s 24(2) of the Act of 2013 -- Claim of the petitioners for release of their un-utilized land is untenable and deserves to be declined.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(1a), 24(1)(b) -- Acquisition under 1894 Act – Commencement of 2013 Act -- Award not passed  – Effect of – Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013 -- In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided u/s 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.

(Para 363(1)(2))

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11, 16 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Lapse of proceedings – Acquisition under 1894 Act – Commencement of 2013 Act -- Compensation paid/not paid – Possession taken/not taken – Effect of -- The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse.  Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

(Para 363(3))

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 31 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Lapse of proceedings – Acquisition under 1894 Act – Commencement of 2013 Act -- Expression “paid” – Meaning of

– Expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.  In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

-- In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

(Para 363(4) and (5))

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 31 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(1)(b), Section 24(2) Proviso – Acquisition under 1894 Act – Commencement of 2013 Act -- Award – Assessment of -- Held, proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).

(Para 363(6))

E. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11, 16 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Acquisition under 1894 Act – Possession of land taken – Commencement of 2013 Act -- Lapse of acquisition proceedings or not -- Mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated u/s 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum.  Once award has been passed on taking possession u/s 16  of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

(Para 363(7))

F. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Acquisition under 1894 Act – Commencement of 2013 Act -- Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings -- Provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014 -- The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

(Para 363(8))

G. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 11, 31 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Acquisition under 1894 Act – Commencement of 2013 Act -- No fresh cause of action to challenge -- Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.  Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014.  It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

(Para 363(9))

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23, 28-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Market value of acquired land – Equal compensation – Writ jurisdiction -- In Reference by many landowner compensation was enhanced – On application u/s 28-A, Collector awarded same compensation to the petitioner vide order dated 6.3.2014 – In appeal before the High Court preferred by other land-owners amount was further enhanced by the High Court on 24.5.2016 – Thereafter, petitioner challenged the order u/s 28-A in the High Court alleging that Collector should have waited for the decision of pending appeals before High Court while deciding application of the petitioner u/s 28-A of the Act – Held, idea u/s 28A is certainly to extend benefit of equal compensation to landholders who, for some reasons had not preferred appropriate applications for Reference in time but for a company having profile such as the petitioner, inaction on the front followed by delay in filing petition in the High Court, disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(Para 1-4, 9, 10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 – Market value of acquired land – Additional evidence -- Judgments pertained to the similarly situated land in District Panchkula, the application for additional evidence allowed since the judgments have been passed after the award which is now impugned -- Judgments would be helpful to judge the market value in near vicinity.

(Para 35)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 – Market value of acquired land – Assessment of –

(i)      It is settled proposition that value of the land of the adjoining villages if it is one of the same quality and identically placed, can be taken into consideration for assessing the market value.

(ii)     What has to be etched on the mental screen of the Court is that in the facts and circumstances, the potentiality of the land in question could not be ignored as it was ripe at the time of acquisition for development from all sides i.e. residential, commercial and institutional.

(iii)    Merely because the land was acquired for the purpose of dumping ground, it would not as such discount the potentiality of the land as the usage of the land is not an aspect which is to be kept in mind by this Court.

(iv)    It is also settled principle that assessment of market value always is on the basis of little guess work and there is no exact formula as such to assess the market value with precision.

(Para 40-63)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 – Compensation in land acquisition case – Direct payment to landowner -- State shall comply with the directions laid down by the Apex Court in 'HSIIDC Vs. Pran Sukh' (2010) 11 SCC 175, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman, which read as under:

(a)     The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation.

(b)     The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account.

(c)     The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.

(d)     The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.

(Para 69)