Provisions Of Land Acquisition Act 2013 Do Not Apply To Acquisitions Under UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam: Allahabad HC

The Court said that while Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 would not apply and the acquisition would not lapse but the Petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking to quash the notifications issued under Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 on the grounds of delay in the acquisition process. The Petitioner also requested a Writ of Mandamus to prevent the Respondents from interfering with the possession, approve their building plan for construction on the land, and decide on their representation.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam observed, “Adhiniyam is not a specified legislation under the Fourth Schedule and therefore, the provisions of the New Act, 2013 ipso facto, do not apply to the acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam. Consequently, Section 24(2) would also not get attracted…Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 would not apply and the acquisition would not lapse but the petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the New Act, 2013”

Advocate Aishwarya Pratap Singh appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Harshit Pandey appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case, the main issue before the Court was whether the acquisition in question initiated under the Adhiniyam would lapse on account of the award having not been declared so far.

The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Another and observed, “it was authoritatively held by the Supreme Court that the subsequent amendments made in the LA Act would not apply to the acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam, but in order to save the acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination, the provisions relating to determination and payment of compensation were made applicable. As a corollary, Section 11-A which was introduced in the LA Act by the amending Act, would not apply to the acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam. Even if award is not made within two years of the issuance of notification under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam (equivalent to Section 6 of the LA Act), the acquisition would not lapse. At the same time, the beneficial provisions relating to determination and payment of compensation introduced by amendment by the Act of 1984, would apply.”

The Court refused to grant sanction to the building plan as the challenge advanced to the notification failed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.