Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an award dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore District, and for a writ of mandamus to draw up an award under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). The land of the petitioner was notified for acquisition for the benefit of respondent No.3, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre. A preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) was issued on 15.03.2008, and a final notification under Sections 6 and 17(1) of the 1894 Act was passed. The award was passed on 20.01.2016, after the 2013 Act had come into force on 01.01.2014. The petitioner contended that the award should have been made under the 2013 Act, as per Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, which provides that where a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued before the 2013 Act came into force, but no award was made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act before the 2013 Act came into force, the award shall be made under the 2013 Act. The respondents argued that the proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act and the award was valid. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the award passed under the 1894 Act after the 2013 Act came into force is unsustainable. The court quashed the impugned award and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award under Section 26 of the 2013 Act, ensuring compliance with the compensation provisions of the 2013 Act. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Applicability of 2013 Act - Award under 1894 Act after 2013 Act - Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Where a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued before the 2013 Act came into force, but the award was passed after the 2013 Act came into force, the award must be made under the 2013 Act in accordance with Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The court held that the award passed under the 1894 Act after the 2013 Act came into force is unsustainable and directed the authorities to draw up a fresh award under Section 26 of the 2013 Act. (Paras 1-10) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Section 26 of the 2013 Act - The court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award under Section 26 of the 2013 Act, ensuring that the compensation is determined in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer could pass an award under the 1894 Act after the 2013 Act came into force, and whether the award must comply with the compensation provisions of the 2013 Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned award dated 20.01.2016, and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh award under Section 26 of the 2013 Act in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Applicability of 2013 Act
- Section 24(1)(a) of 2013 Act
- Section 26 of 2013 Act
- Section 11 of 1894 Act
- Award under 1894 Act after 2013 Act
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
