Case Note & Summary
The petitioners were owners of agricultural land in Choundi village, Latur district, Maharashtra, which was acquired by the State. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 2/7/2009, followed by a Section 6 declaration on 6/5/2010. However, the award under Section 11 of the old Act was not made until 22/3/2016, after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) came into force on 1/1/2014. The petitioners sought a direction to the authorities to calculate compensation using 1/1/2014 as the reference date for market value under Section 26 of the 2013 Act, as mandated by Section 24(1)(a) of that Act. The respondents argued that the petitioners should pursue the alternate remedy of reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act. The court rejected this objection, noting that the illegality was apparent and that a Division Bench had already entertained similar petitions. On merits, the court held that since no award was made before 1/1/2014, Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies, requiring compensation to be determined under the new Act. The Government of India's clarification dated 26/10/2015 expressly states that the reference date for market value under Section 24(1)(a) should be 1/1/2014. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had erroneously used 2/7/2009 (the date of the Section 4 notification) as the reference date. The court partly allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to recalculate compensation using 1/1/2014 as the reference date and to pay the difference within three months.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Reference Date - Section 24(1)(a) read with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but no award under Section 11 of the old Act was made before 1/1/2014, the reference date for calculating market value under Section 26 of the 2013 Act is 1/1/2014, not the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the old Act. The court held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer's adoption of 2/7/2009 as the reference date was illegal and directed recalculation using 1/1/2014 as the reference date, relying on a Government of India clarification dated 26/10/2015 and a Division Bench judgment of the same court. (Paras 4-5, 9, 11-14)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Availability of an alternate remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act does not bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition when the illegality in calculating compensation is palpably apparent. The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to decide the matter on merits, also noting that a Division Bench had repelled a similar objection in Namdeo Apparao Chate & Others. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
What should be the reference date for determining market value of land under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but no award was made before the commencement of the 2013 Act?
Final Decision
The writ petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to recalculate the compensation payable to the petitioners for the acquisition of their lands by taking 1/1/2014 as the reference date for determining market value under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and to pay the difference in compensation, if any, within three months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Reference date for market value under Section 24(1)(a) of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013 is 1/1/2014
- not date of Section 4 notification under old Act
- Availability of alternate remedy under Section 64 does not bar writ jurisdiction when illegality is apparent
- Section 24(1)(a) mandates application of new Act's compensation provisions where no award under Section 11 of old Act was made before 1/1/2014
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 261
Writ Petition No. 6598/2023 (leading petition) and connected matters
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for respondent – State Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for respondent No.5
Bhagwat Tukaram Shelke & Others
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to authorities to calculate compensation for land acquisition using the correct reference date under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a direction to the authorities to calculate compensation for acquisition of their land using 1/1/2014 as the reference date for market value under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, instead of 2/7/2009.
Filing Reason
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, while making the award on 22/3/2016, used the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (2/7/2009) as the reference date for calculating market value, instead of 1/1/2014, the date of commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which the petitioners contended was illegal.
Previous Decisions
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Namdeo Apparao Chate & Others (Writ Petition No.6598/2023) had repelled the objection of maintainability due to alternate remedy and decided similar issue on merits. The Allahabad High Court in Smt. Sabita Sharma (Writ Petition No.30088/2022) had taken a similar view.
Issues
Whether the reference date for determining market value under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, in cases covered by Section 24(1)(a) of that Act, should be 1/1/2014 or the date of the preliminary notification under the old Act?
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that under Section 24(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, since no award was made before 1/1/2014, compensation must be determined under the new Act, and the reference date for market value should be 1/1/2014 as clarified by the Government of India's D.O. letter dated 26/10/2015. The award dated 22/3/2016 erroneously used 2/7/2009 as the reference date.
Respondents (State and respondent No.4) argued that the petitioners should avail the alternate remedy of reference under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, and the writ petition should not be entertained.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but no award under Section 11 of the old Act was made before the commencement of the 2013 Act on 1/1/2014, the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply. For calculating market value under Section 26 of the 2013 Act, the reference date is 1/1/2014, not the date of the preliminary notification under the old Act. This interpretation is supported by the Government of India's clarification dated 26/10/2015 and is consistent with the beneficial purpose of the 2013 Act to ensure enhanced compensation to landowners.
Judgment Excerpts
The reference date for calculation of market value, under Section 24(1)(a) should be 01/01/2014 (commencement of RFCTLARR Act, 2013), as the Section reads 'in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 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.'
In such a situation, in our opinion, relegating the Petitioners to take recourse to remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 will not be appropriate. Accordingly, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary in nature, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the compensation award dated 22/3/2016 made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability due to alternate remedy under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The court overruled the objection and decided the matter on merits, partly allowing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 24, 26, 54, 64
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4, 6, 11, 11-A
- Constitution of India: 226
