Market Value Of Land Acquired U/s 4(1) Of 1894 Act To Be Determined Under Right To Fair Compensation Act 2013 If Award Passed After Enforcement: Karnataka HC

Resultantly, Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav while directing the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a fresh Award while re-working the compensation, observed, "Accordingly, the market value even as regards circumstance of 4(1) Notification under 1894 Act and where Award is sought to be passed after coming into force of the 2013 Act would be as on January 1, 2014".

It is to be noted that on January 1, 2014 the 2013 Act came into force.

Senior Advocate D.L.N. Rao appeared on behalf of Raghavendra Kattimani for the petitioner and AGA R. Srinivas Gowda appeared for the State, Advocate Omkaresha appeared for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Rare Material Project, DSGI H. Shanthi Bhushan appeared for the Union of India.

In the present matter, the preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on March 15, 2008.

The final Notification under Section 6 and 17(1) of 1894 Act came to be passed on June 5, 2009. The validity of the notification came to be challenged in 2010, and the same was while disposed off remitting the matter for fresh disposal after affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of 1894 Act.

However, the Notification was published under Section 6(1) of 1894 Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Notification in 2013 and during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, 2013 Act came into force and the petition was disposed off.

Therefore, the petitioner also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to draw up an Award in terms of Section 26 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

In the present matter, the petitioner while assailing the impugned order had contended that the Guidelines mandated under Section 26 of 2013 Act have not been followed, and that the reliance on the Notification dated July 4, 2013, which was passed prior to commencement of 2013 Act is bad in law.

While referring to Hori Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others 2019 SCC OnLine SC 129, it was further argued that the value as the base price for calculation of compensation under Section 26 of 2013 Act should be the value as on January 1, 2014.

Therefore, the questions to be adjudicated upon by the bench were:

• (a)Where Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is passed but Award is passed only after coming into force of 2013 Act, the market value of the land is to be determined as on the date of Section 4(1) Notification of 1894 Act or on 01.01.2014 when 2013 Act has come into force?
• (b)Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer could have relied on the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value?

While answering in favour of the petitioner, the bench also considered the fact that though initially the petitioner had challenged the validity of the proceedings in 2013, during the course of the proceedings, the petitioner had settled for the relief of entitlement of compensation in terms of 2013 Act.

On the second question, the bench while accepting the contention of the petitioner was of the opinion that it was rightly contended that reliance on the Gazette Notification dated July 4, 2013 was not be proper as the same is prior to coming into force of 2013 Act and the determination of market value under Section 26 of 2013 Act is to be made taking note of the guidelines contained in Section 26 of 2013 Act.

Accordingly, the bench disposed of the writ petition.

Cause Title: M/S. Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd v. State Of Karnataka