1. Jaspreet Singh S/o Mohinder Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o
Alharan Gate Nabha, District Patiyala, Panjab, , Punjab
---Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Thorugh Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Cum Land Acquisition Officer,
Arang / Abhanpur, Headquarter Raipur District Raipur (CG)
4. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief
Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New
Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Building
Govind Sarang , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
1. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur W/o Harmeet Singh, Aged About 50 Years
R/o House No. 45, Ashwariya Residency, Telhibandha, G. E.
Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition
Officer, Arang/ Abhanpur, Headquarter Raipur, District :
4. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief
Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New
Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R. D. A. Bauilding
Govind Sarang, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
1. Amandeep Singh S/o Harjinder Singh, Aged About 32 Years
R/o Deep- 13, Samadhi Road Chowk, G. T. Road, Khanna,
District Ludhiyana, Punjab, Through Power Of Attorney
Holder, Harjinder Singh, S/o S. Manohar Singh, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Deep- 13, Samadhi Road Chowk, G. T. Road,
Khanna, District Ludhiyana, Punjab, Punjab
---Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub- Divisional Officer, Revenue- Cum- Land Acquisition
Officer, Arang/ Abhanpur, Headquarter, Raipur, District :
4. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief
Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New
Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R.D.A. Bauilding
Govind Sarang, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
1. Meharban Singh S/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o
L 6 Shri Guru Har Kishan Nagar, M.K. Road, Khanna, District
Ludhiyana, Punjab.
2. Amandeep Singh, S/o Harjinder Singh, Aged About 32 Years
R/o Deep- 13, Samadhi Road Chowk, G.T. Road, Khanna,
District Ludhiyana, Punjab Through Power Of Attorney Holder,
Harjinder Singh, Son Of S. Manohar Singh, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Deep 13, Samadhi Raod Chowk, G. T. Road,
Khanna, District Ludhiyana, Punjab.
---Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,
2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue-Cum-Land Acquisition
Officer, Arang/ Abhanpur, Headquarter Raipur District :
4. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief
Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New
Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R. D. A. Bauilding
Govind Sarang, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
1. Harchand Singh S/o S. Gurdev Singh, Aged About 55 Years
R/o 10 Savina C T, Flat Bush, Auckland New Zealand.
Through Power Of Attorney Holder, S. Harnek Singh, S/o Late
Mohinder Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Govindpur, Tehsil
And District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue- Cum- Land Acquisition
Officer, Arang/ Abhanpur, Headquarter Raipur, District :
4. Naya Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief
Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, New
Rajendra Nagar, Opposite Vijeta Complex, R. D. A. Building
Govind Sarang, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District :
1. As the question for determination in above writ petitions is
one and the same, therefore, they are being heard together
and decided by this common order.
2. Facts of case, in brief, are that respondent No.3 Sub-
Divisional Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Aarang /
Abhanpur issued nwotification under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth 'the Act of 1894'), which
was published in daily newspaper on 29.3.2013. Thereafter,
notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published.
During pendency of land acquisition proceeding, new act
namely "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short 'the Act of 2013') came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014.
After following procedure as prescribed under the Act of 2013,
award under Section 23 of the Act of 2013 came to be passed
on 18.9.2015, Annexure P-1, by respondent No.3 computing
compensation to be paid against acquisition of land of
respective petitioners along with others under the land
acquisition proceeding.
3. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions primarily on the
ground that after notification and coming force of the Act of
2013 on 1.1.2014, even if the land acquisition proceeding
initiated under the old Act i.e. the Act of 1894, continued, it
has to be completed within period of 12 months from the date
of publication of declaration under Section 19 of the Act of
2013. Award was not passed within twelve months, hence
proceeding lapsed after twelve months. The award passed is
therefore no award. It is also contention of learned counsel
for petitioners that the Collector has not conducted inquiry as
contemplated under Section 23 of the Act of 2013. Had the
inquiry was conducted by the Collector, petitioners could have
an opportunity to raise objection in accordance with law. It is
also contention of learned counsel for petitioners that
compensation as computed by Land Acquisition Officer is not
in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013, which
provides for determination of market value of land by the
Collector as envisaged under Section 26 of the Act of 2013. It
is also contended by learned counsel for petitioners that for
the purpose of these writ petitions, he is pressing upon the
ground that due to non-passing of the award within prescribed
period of 12 months the entire land acquisition proceeding
initiated has lapsed. In support of his contention, he places
reliance upon decision rendered in case of State of West
Bengal vs. Anup Kumar Mondal & anr, reported in 2022 SCC
Online Cal 4149; Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project
Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation vs. Mahesh and others, reported in
(2022) 2 SCC 772; Vitthal Rama Pawar (Katkari) and others
vs. Deputy Collector (Acquisition) Raigad-Alibag and others,
reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 149 and order of Division
Bench of this Court dated 25.7.2024 in WA No.30/2019
(NRDA vs Gaukaran & others).
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to
3- State while opposing submissions made by learned
counsel for petitioners, submits that award was passed in
accordance with provisions under the Act of 2013,
computation of compensation is based on market value as
provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013. As there was
no recent sale deeds, guidelines issued by the Collector was
taken into consideration and taking note of provisions of
Sections 26 (1) & 30 of the Act of 2013, the compensation
was computed and award was passed. Petitioners are having
alternate remedy as envisaged under Section 51 of the Act of
2013 of raising their grievance before the Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. He vehemently
denied submission of learned counsel for petitioners that
compensation was computed as per old Act of 1894 and
submits that amount of compensation is computed in
accordance with provisions contained in Section 23 of the Act
of 2013. He also contended that award was passed,
possession was taken and therefore, the proceeding of land
acquisition proceeding under the Act of 2013 would not lapse.
In support of his submission, he places reliance on decision in
case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhagwat Singh
and others, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 213.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent NRDA
opposing submissions of learned counsel for petitioners,
would submit that main contention of petitioners is with regard
to seeking enhancement of amount of compensation and
therefore, they are having efficacious alternate remedy as
provided under the Act of 2013. It is also contended that
respondent NRDA has deposited the amount as computed
and demanded by the Land Acquisition Officer within
appropriate time. As during pendency of land acquisition
proceedings under the Act of 1894, the Act of 2013 came into
force, therefore, proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894
continued under the Act of 2013 and as such, the delay in
passing of the award cannot be attributed to respondent No.4.
They submit that writ petitions are having no merit and the
same are liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused
documents on record.
7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to proposal made by
respondent NRDA for acquisition of total 51.114 hectare land
for public purpose i.e. for development of Naya Raipur, initially
the proceeding of land acquisition, subject matter of writ
petition and impugned award, was initiated under the Act of
1894 by publishing Notification on 29.3.2013 under Section 4
(1) of the Act of 1894. After considering the objections filed by
concerned land owners, declaration under under Section 6 of
the Act of 1894 came to be issued on 20.9.2013, which was
published in daily newspaper on 8.10.2013. Notices under
Section 9 (1)(2) of the Act of 1894 to the persons interested in
the land came to be issued on 10.3.2014. Thereafter, on
18.9.2015 the award in question has been passed.
8. Admittedly, during pendency of land acquisition proceeding
under the Act of 1894, the Act of 2013 was notified on
19.12.2023 in official gazette and it came into force w.e.f.
1.1.2014. Chapter-IV of the Act of 2013 deals with
Notification and Acquisition. Section 11 of the Act of 2013
talks of publication of preliminary notification and power of
officers thereupon. This section is akin to Section 4 of the Act
of 1894. Section 19 of the Act of 2013 talks of publication of
declaration and summary of rehabilitation and resettlement.
This section is akin to section 6 of the Act of 1894. Section 24
of the Act of 2013 talks of situation when land acquisition
process under Act No.1 of 1894, shall be deemed to have
lapsed in certain cases. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 reads
thus:-
of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in
certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, in any case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894,-
(a) where no award under section 11 of the
said Land Acquisition Act has been made,
then, all provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply;
or
(b)where an award under said section 11
has been made, then such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the
said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act
has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
where an award under the said section 11 has
been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the
compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and
the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall
initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of this
Act:
Provided that where an award has been made
and compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of
the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in
the notification for acquisition under section 4 of
the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
9. A bare reading of Section 24 (1) (a) would make it clear that in
case where acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Act
of 1894 and no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has
been made, then all provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to
determining of compensation shall apply. In view of
aforementioned specific provision incorporated under the Act
of 2013, the provision of Section 25 of the Act of 2013 is
attracted which provides for the period within which award
shall be made. Section 25 of the Act of 2013 is extracted
below for ready reference:-
"25.Period within which an award shall be
made.- The Collector shall make an award within a
period of twelve months from the date of
publication of the declaration under section 19 and
if no award is made within that period, the entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall
lapse:
Provided that the appropriate Government
shall have the power to extend the period of twelve
months if in its opinion, circumstances exist
justifying the same:
Provided further that any such decision to
extend the period shall be recorded in writing and
the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the
website of the authority concerned."
10. As per section 25 of the Act of 2013, period of limitation for
making an award by the Collector or competent authority is
12 months from the date of publication of declaration under
Section 19. Section 19 of the Act of 2013 is similar to Section
6 of the Act of 1894. Therefore, declaration under Section 6
of the Act of 1894 has to be treated declaration under Section
19 of the Act of 2013. However, the Act of 2013 came into
force w.e.f 1.1.2014, therefore, period within which award
shall be made will start from the date of coming into force of
the Act of 2013 because the proceedings have to be
concluded under the Act of 2013, thereafter.
11. As per first proviso to Section 25 of the Act of 2013, the
statute provides power to the State Government to extend
period of 12 months, if in its opinion circumstances exist
justifying the same. In second proviso it is provided that any
such decision to extend period of 12 months shall be
recorded in writing and the same shall also be notified and be
uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.
Respondent State in its reply to writ petition has not made
any specific pleading that the State Government has
extended period of limitation at any point of time following the
procedure as provided under Section 25 of the Act of 2013 of
recording it in writing, notifying and uploading on the website
of the authority concerned. If the government has not decided
and initiated any proceeding to extend the period, then
period for passing an award, for the purpose of these writ
petitions, has to be treated as 12 months from the date of
publication of declaration that the lands notified are needed
for public purpose. Respondent State along with its reply has
not submitted any document in this regard nor any
submission is made during the course of arguments.
12. In case of Mahesh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering provision under section 6 of the Act of 1894, held
that declaration under Section 6 and declaration under
Section 19 of the Act of 2013, are not different, both serve the
same purpose. It was observed as under:-
"29. Given the object and purpose behind Sections
24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, we notice that
practical absurdities and anomalies may arise if the
two-year period for making of an award in terms of
Section 11-A of the 1894 Act commencing from the
date of issue of the declaration is applied to the
awards to be made under Section 24(1)(a) of the
2013 Act. This would mitigate against the underlying
legislative intent behind prescription of time for
making of an award in respect of saved acquisition
proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act,
which is twofold: (i) to give sufficient time to the
authorities to determine compensation payable
under the 2013 Act; and (ii) to ensure early and
expedited payment to the landowners by reducing
the period from two years under Section 11-A of the
1894 Act to twelve months under Section 25 of the
2013 Act. In case of declarations issued in January
2012, on application of Section 11-A of the 1894 Act,
the time to determine compensation under the 2013
Act would vary from a day to a month, and while in
cases where the declarations were issued within
twelve months of the repeal of the 1894 Act, the
landowners would be at a disadvantage as an
award beyond the twelve-month period specified in
Section 25 of the 2013 Act would be valid. In the first
set of cases, given the onerous factual and legal
exercise involved in determination of compensation
and the need to issue notification under Section
26(2) of the 2013 Act, publication of the awards
would be impractical. Hasty and incorrect awards
would be deleterious for the landowners. If the
awards are not pronounced, the acquisition
proceedings would lapse defeating the legislative
intent behind Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act to
save such proceedings. We would, therefore,
exercise our choice to arrive at a just, fair and
harmonious construction consistent with the
legislative intent.
30. A rational approach so as to further the object
and purpose of Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the
2013 Act is required. We are conscious that Section
25 refers to publication of a notification under
Section 19 as the starting point of limitation. In the
context of clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013
Act there would be no notification under Section 19,
but declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
When the declarations under Section 6 are valid as
on 1-1-2014, it is necessary to give effect to the
legislative intention and reckon the starting point. In
the context of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act,
declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act are no
different and serve the same purpose as the
declarations under Section 19 of the 2013 Act.
13. In case of Vitthal Rama Pawar (Supra), the Division Bench of
Bombay High Court has held thus:
"21. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable
to accept the submission of Ms. Bane that the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited (supra) has
impliedly overruled its decision in Executive
Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara,
Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation (supra). This is more so when one take
into consideration that the said judgment in
Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi,
Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation (supra) has been
specifically referred to in Haryana State Industrial &
Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in
paragraph 9 thereof), and the same has not been
overruled, either expressly or by necessary
implication. Another factor that persuades us to take
this view is that one of the Judges in both the
matters was the same (A. M. Khanvilkar, J. as he
then was). If the Supreme Court, in Haryana State
Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation
Limited wanted to overrule its judgment in Executive
Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara,
Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation (supra), it would have expressly done
so. We therefore find that the argument of Ms. Bane
is wholly misplaced and so is the reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited (supra).
22. As mentioned earlier, this point is squarely
covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project
Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation (supra) which clearly
stipulates that in cases falling under Section 24(1)
(a) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing
an Award would commence from 1st January, 2014
and the same would have to be passed within a
period of 12 months thereafter, subject to any stay
being granted by any Court. In other words, the
period during which the stay was operating would
have to be excluded for the purposes of calculating
the period of 12 months. This has admittedly not
been done in the present case. Therefore, on this
count also, the entire acquisition proceedings are
bad and the Awards passed pursuant thereto, are
also unsustainable."
14. In W.A. No.30/2019 (supra), the Division Bench of this Court
placing reliance upon decision in case of Deepak Agrawal
(Supra), Mahesh (supra) and Vittham Rama Pawar (supra),
has observed in Para-14 as under:-
"14. The issue involved in this case has already
been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
therefore, this Court cannot take a different view in
the case having similar issue to that of Haryana
State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited case (supra) and The
Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi,
Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation case (supra). The
learned Single Judge has rightly considered Section
25 of the new Act of 2013 that if the award has not
been passed within 12 months, the entire
proceeding for acquisition of the land shall lapse
and liberty was given to the respondents to draw
fresh proceedings of land acquisition if they still
require any land for public purpose and thus, even if
the old land acquisition proceeding has been
lapsed/quashed the respondents/State have every
right to initiate fresh land acquisition proceeding
under the new Act of 2013 if they still requires any
land for public purpose."
15. If the facts of present case are considered in light of decisions
referred above, it is apparent that Notification under Section 4
(1) of the Act of 1894 was published on 29.3.2013.
Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published
in official gazette on 20.9.2013 and in daily newspapers on
8.10.2013. The Act of 2013 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2014.
Hence, for the purpose of computing the period of 12 months
in the facts of the case would start from 1.1.2014 and not
from 20.9.2013. However, the impugned award was passed
on18.9.2015, whereas period of 12 months was expired on
31.12.2014. Thus, in the light of decisions referred above and
in totality of facts and circumstances of case, I am having no
hesitation to hold that land acquisition proceedings initiated
had lapsed for want of non-passing of award within period of
12 months as provided under Section 25 of the Act of 2013.
Therefore, impugned award, Annexure P-1, is not sustainable
and is liable to be quashed.
16. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned award dated
18.9.2015 is hereby quashed. Since the impugned award is
quashed only for the reason that award was not passed
within prescribed period of limitation of 12 months from the
date of publication of notification under Section 19 of the Act
of 2013 / Section 6 of the Act of 1894, it will be open for
respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings
under the Act of 2013, if they still want to acquire lands, which
SYED are subject matter of these writ petitions and impugned
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI award, for public purpose.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
