JUDGEMENT

DILIP GUPTA,J. - (1.)This petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 19 November 2013 made by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)1 under section 11 of The Land Acquisition Act, 18942 as also the amended award dated 4 March 2014 that seeks to make corrections under Section 12-A(1) of the 1894 Act in the aforesaid award dated 19 November 2013. A further relief that has been claimed is that compensation should, thereafter, be determined in accordance with the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20133.
(2.)The petitioners claim to be owners of 0.165 hectares of land situated in Khasra No. 126 in village Rasulpur, Yaqoobpur, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. A notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act read with sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the 1894 Act was issued on 16 October 2004 for acquisition of 68.537 hectares of land 1 'ADM (LA)' 2 'the 1894 Act' 3 the 2013 Act situated in village Rasulpur, Yakoobpur, including 0.165 hectares of land situated in Khasra No. 126, for construction of a residential colony by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad under a Planned Development Scheme. This was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 28 October 2005. The award was made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act by the ADM(LA) on 19 November 2013. Possession of 61.522 hectares of land was taken on 18 May 2006; of 1.971 hectares of land on 21 March 2009; of 0.747625 hectares on 31 December 2009 and of 4.2607375 hectares on 2 June 2010. It needs to be stated that the award was made under Section 11(1) of the 1894 Act for 6.648125 hectares of land, while the award for 19.214875 hectares of land was made under Section 11 (2) of the 1894 Act under the provisions of The Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 19975. The award for the remaining 42.585 hectares of land was not made because of the interim orders passed by the Court. However, as there were clerical mistakes in the award dated 19 November 2013, the Collector on his own motion corrected the same on 4 March 2014.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award dated 19 November 2013 and, therefore, the date of award should be treated as 4 March 2014, on which date the amended award was made. The submission is that the compensation for the land should, therefore, have been determined in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act as is provided for under 4 'the Development Authority' 5 'the 1997 Rules' Section 24(1)(a). In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition of land are entitled to receive compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act as contemplated under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since compensation in respect of a majority of the land holdings was not deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. To support this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 3447 of 2015, Dayaram Bhondu Koche and Ors., v. The State of Maharashtra, and Ors., decided on 5 December 2016 ; a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 8596 of 2014, Tarun Pal Singh and Anr. v. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., decided on 21 May 2015. which was subsequently followed by the Division Benches of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5095 of 2014; Writ Petition (C) No. 8273 of 2014, Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 4 January 2017 , and Writ Petition (C) No. 1103 of 2016, Mahendra v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 30 August 2017. It has, therefore, been submitted that the award dated 19 November 2013 should be set aside and it should be made in accordance with the principles set out in the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.