In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court clarified that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (“Adhiniyam”) do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“New Act, 2013”). The decision was rendered by a division bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam in the case of M/s Bir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-C No. 23248 of 2024).
Background of the Case
The case concerned two notifications issued by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad on June 12, 2004, and June 24, 2010, under Sections 28 and 32 of the Adhiniyam, respectively, for the acquisition of land owned by M/s Bir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Aishwarya Pratap Singh, argued that the acquisition proceedings should be considered lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 due to the prolonged delay in the declaration of an award. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus to prevent interference with their possession and to compel the approval of their building plans.
In response, the respondents, represented by Advocates Harshit Pandey and Nipun Singh, argued that the New Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam. They contended that there is no provision for the automatic lapsing of acquisition under the Adhiniyam, citing previous judgments by the Supreme Court that distinguish between acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LA Act”) and those under the Adhiniyam.
Legal Issues Addressed by the Court
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the land acquisition initiated under the Adhiniyam could be declared lapsed due to non-declaration of an award, as provided for under Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013. The court examined the applicability of the New Act, 2013, particularly Section 24(2), to acquisitions governed by the Adhiniyam, a special state statute.
Court’s Observations and Findings
The court relied on earlier judgments by the Supreme Court, including U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another and Hem Chandra v. State of U.P. and others, to conclude that the New Act, 2013 does not automatically apply to acquisitions under the Adhiniyam. It observed:
“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, with the date of reference for determining the compensation being 01.01.2014, the date on which the New Act, 2013 was enforced.”
The court clarified that while the beneficial provisions of the New Act, 2013, relating to compensation should be applied to avoid any arbitrariness or discrimination, the acquisition itself does not lapse due to a delay in declaring an award. The court emphasized that the Adhiniyam is a complete code in itself, and its provisions regarding acquisition remain unaffected by subsequent amendments to the LA Act or the New Act, 2013.
Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta further elaborated:
“The subsequent amendments made in the LA Act would not apply to the acquisitions made under the Adhiniyam, but to avoid arbitrariness and discrimination, the provisions relating to determination and payment of compensation under the New Act, 2013 were made applicable.”
The court dismissed the petition filed by M/s Bir Hotels Pvt. Ltd., thereby rejecting the challenge to the acquisition notifications and the demand for approval of building plans. However, it upheld the petitioner’s right to claim compensation under the more equitable terms of the New Act, 2013.
Case Title: M/s Bir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Writ-C No. 23248 of 2024
Bench: Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
