Rashtriya Kisan Mazdoor Sangathanregd.thru.v.m.singh … v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lucknow and others

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar learned counsel along with Ms. Harshita Rajnish and Sri Harshit Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in -2- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016 Writ-C No.29916 of 2017 and Sri V.M. Singh, petitioner in person appearing in WPIL No.12510 of 2016, Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.B. Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Devrishi Kumar, the learned counsel for Union of India.

2. The short point involved herein is as what would be the date for determining the compensation in a matter where acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the old Act i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the award had not been rendered till 01.01.2014 which is the date of coming into force of the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act,

2013. In this context two Government Orders have been challenged in the PIL referred hereinabove. However, on a consideration of the entire matter, we see no reason to consider or quash the Government Order dated 14.03.2014 as all that it says in the context of these proceedings is that in a case where acquisition proceedings have been issued under Section 4, the subsequent notification would be under Section 6 but compensation would be determined under the new Act of 2013 about which there cannot be any dispute. However, the dispute is with regard to the subsequent Government Order dated 01.06.2015, according to which the relevant date for determining compensation in matters such as those referred hereinabove would be the date of publication under the Old Act i.e. under Section 4(1). This issue is no longer res-integra. We may in this very context refer to a notification of the Central Government dated 26.10.2015, which is referable to Section 113 of the Act, 2013. According to the said notification-"the reference date for calculation of market value, under Section 24 (1)(a) should be

01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013), as the Section reads "in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Under Section -3- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016 26 reference date is date of preliminary notification, but Section 24 is a special case of application of the act in retrospective cases, and a later date of determination of market value is suggested (i.e., 01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land owners/farmers/affected families get enhanced compensation under the provisions of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 (as also recommended by Standing Committee in its 31st report".

3. This clarification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 113 of the Act, 2013 while considering the issue as to what would be the relevant date for calculation of market value under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013.

4. We may in this very context refer to Section 24 (1)(a). It reads as under:- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b)..."

5. The case at hand is squarely covered by the said provision and the notification aforesaid dated 26.10.2015 as the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in this case vide publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17.10.2005 but till

01.01.2014 which is the date of coming into force of the Act, 2013 the award had not been rendered and in fact it was rendered subsequently on

26.12.2015. -4- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016

6. We may also in this very context refer to coordinate Bench judgement reported in (2024) 163 ALR 771: Pyare Lal and others Vs. Union of India and others wherein relying upon the aforesaid notification dated 26.10.2015 and a Supreme Court's decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.1462 of 2019: Hori Lal Vs. State of U.P. after noticing the stand of State of U.P. as stated in their counter affidavit which was considered by the Supreme Court that the appropriate date for determining the market value of the appellant's acquired land would be the date, which is declared by the Central Government i.e. 01.01.2024 and therefore the State would determine the compensation payable to the appellant accordingly, it observed that once the State took a defence in this case that the compensation in the case of the appellant would be determined keeping in view 01.01.2024 to be the date as the basis, the appellant should feel satisfied with the stand. The apparent reason is that though the acquisition was made under the Old Act in 2002 yet the appellant was held entitled to get compensation under the New Act, 2013 by taking 01.01.2014 as the base date for determination of compensation. The reference to the notification of the Central Government is obviously a reference to the notification date 26.10.2015 referred by us hereinabove. There are other coordinate Bench judgments rendered in Writ-C No.23931 of 2024: Dharmendra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and Writ-C No.12796 of 2024: Hem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein the same issue cropped up and the conclusion arrived at was the same as discussed hereinabove.

7. Although, Sri S.B. Pandey has tried to drive home the point that the award has already been prepared and the entire exercise has been made and as the acquisition was for the Seema Suraksha Bal, therefore, it is not a case for interference but, confronted with the Central Government's own notification referred to hereinabove, the declaration of law by this Court as also Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject, he could not satisfy us to take any other view. -5- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016

8. The learned counsel for the State initially made an effort on the same lines, but on being confronted with the aforesaid decisions and notification he also could not satisfy us to take a contrary view. Government Order dated 01.06.2015 is dehors the notification dated

26.10.2015 and the law declared by Constitutional Courts hence liable to be quashed.

9. As regards maintainability of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the judgment dated 28.04.2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench in an earlier PIL filed by the petitioner of WPIL No.8122 of 2006 challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 by which the said petition was disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to to question the correctness of the award and the government order dated 01.06.2015 but again, with an observation, that the award could be challenged in terms of the Act of 2013 and the procedure provided therein. But if the tenure holders propose to challenge the vires of the Government Order dated 01.06.2015 which is the foundation of the award, then it is open for the tenure holders to file a fresh writ petition questioning the correctness of Government Order dated 01.06.2015 viz-a-viz the Act of

2013. It further observed that "they shall also be entitled to receive the compensation, which has been awarded under the award dated

26.12.2015, under protest, which shall be released not later than one month from today." Thus petition, which is challenging the vires of Government Order dated 01.06.2015 on the aforesaid grounds is maintainable. The consequential relief of re-determination of compensation has been granted by us because it is not the case of the petitioners of Writ C No. 29916 of 2017 who are aggrieved, that there are other grounds on which they seek to challenge the award, for which, of course, they would have had to take recourse to the Act of 2013. The challenge being confined to the validity of the Government Order dated

01.06.2015, this petition is maintainable in light of the aforesaid and -6- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016 also, as, the law being settled, we see no reason why we should be bound by technicalities in the facts of this case.

10. For all these reasons, as the learned counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy us that the legal position is otherwise and as there are direct judgments on the issue involved, we are of the opinion that the Government Order dated 01.06.2015 prescribing the cut-off date for determination of compensation in matters such as the one involved herein, as the date of the initial publication under the Old Act of 1894, is not sustainable. It is accordingly quashed.

11. As regards WPIL No.12510 of 2016 is concerned as the petitioner is not personally aggrieved therefore in that PIL the declaration of law as made herein will apply. In Writ-C No.29916 of 2017 the compensation was determined by the award date 26.12.2015 on the basis of initial publication under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and not on the basis of

01.01.2014 as was statutorily obligatory, therefore,the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly U.P./opposite party no.6 will have to take consequential action in compliance of this judgment qua the petitioners of Writ-C No.29916 of 2017, consequently, the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners of Writ-C No.29916 of 2017 will have to be redetermined qua the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid and paid to them as per law at the earliest, say within three months.

12. The writ petitions stand allowed but in the aforesaid terms. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) November 24, 2025 Ram. RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar learned counsel along with Ms. Harshita Rajnish and Sri Harshit Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in -2- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016 Writ-C No.29916 of 2017 and Sri V.M. Singh, petitioner in person appearing in WPIL No.12510 of 2016, Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.B. Pandey, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Devrishi Kumar, the learned counsel for Union of India.

2. The short point involved herein is as what would be the date for determining the compensation in a matter where acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the old Act i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the award had not been rendered till 01.01.2014 which is the date of coming into force of the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act,

2013. In this context two Government Orders have been challenged in the PIL referred hereinabove. However, on a consideration of the entire matter, we see no reason to consider or quash the Government Order dated 14.03.2014 as all that it says in the context of these proceedings is that in a case where acquisition proceedings have been issued under Section 4, the subsequent notification would be under Section 6 but compensation would be determined under the new Act of 2013 about which there cannot be any dispute. However, the dispute is with regard to the subsequent Government Order dated 01.06.2015, according to which the relevant date for determining compensation in matters such as those referred hereinabove would be the date of publication under the Old Act i.e. under Section 4(1). This issue is no longer res-integra. We may in this very context refer to a notification of the Central Government dated 26.10.2015, which is referable to Section 113 of the Act, 2013. According to the said notification-"the reference date for calculation of market value, under Section 24 (1)(a) should be

01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013), as the Section reads "in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Under Section -3- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016 26 reference date is date of preliminary notification, but Section 24 is a special case of application of the act in retrospective cases, and a later date of determination of market value is suggested (i.e., 01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land owners/farmers/affected families get enhanced compensation under the provisions of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013 (as also recommended by Standing Committee in its 31st report".

3. This clarification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 113 of the Act, 2013 while considering the issue as to what would be the relevant date for calculation of market value under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013.

4. We may in this very context refer to Section 24 (1)(a). It reads as under:- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (b)..."

5. The case at hand is squarely covered by the said provision and the notification aforesaid dated 26.10.2015 as the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in this case vide publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17.10.2005 but till

01.01.2014 which is the date of coming into force of the Act, 2013 the award had not been rendered and in fact it was rendered subsequently on

26.12.2015. -4- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016

6. We may also in this very context refer to coordinate Bench judgement reported in (2024) 163 ALR 771: Pyare Lal and others Vs. Union of India and others wherein relying upon the aforesaid notification dated 26.10.2015 and a Supreme Court's decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.1462 of 2019: Hori Lal Vs. State of U.P. after noticing the stand of State of U.P. as stated in their counter affidavit which was considered by the Supreme Court that the appropriate date for determining the market value of the appellant's acquired land would be the date, which is declared by the Central Government i.e. 01.01.2024 and therefore the State would determine the compensation payable to the appellant accordingly, it observed that once the State took a defence in this case that the compensation in the case of the appellant would be determined keeping in view 01.01.2024 to be the date as the basis, the appellant should feel satisfied with the stand. The apparent reason is that though the acquisition was made under the Old Act in 2002 yet the appellant was held entitled to get compensation under the New Act, 2013 by taking 01.01.2014 as the base date for determination of compensation. The reference to the notification of the Central Government is obviously a reference to the notification date 26.10.2015 referred by us hereinabove. There are other coordinate Bench judgments rendered in Writ-C No.23931 of 2024: Dharmendra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and Writ-C No.12796 of 2024: Hem Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others wherein the same issue cropped up and the conclusion arrived at was the same as discussed hereinabove.

7. Although, Sri S.B. Pandey has tried to drive home the point that the award has already been prepared and the entire exercise has been made and as the acquisition was for the Seema Suraksha Bal, therefore, it is not a case for interference but, confronted with the Central Government's own notification referred to hereinabove, the declaration of law by this Court as also Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject, he could not satisfy us to take any other view. -5- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016

8. The learned counsel for the State initially made an effort on the same lines, but on being confronted with the aforesaid decisions and notification he also could not satisfy us to take a contrary view. Government Order dated 01.06.2015 is dehors the notification dated

26.10.2015 and the law declared by Constitutional Courts hence liable to be quashed.

9. As regards maintainability of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners have invited our attention to the judgment dated 28.04.2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench in an earlier PIL filed by the petitioner of WPIL No.8122 of 2006 challenging the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 by which the said petition was disposed of without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to to question the correctness of the award and the government order dated 01.06.2015 but again, with an observation, that the award could be challenged in terms of the Act of 2013 and the procedure provided therein. But if the tenure holders propose to challenge the vires of the Government Order dated 01.06.2015 which is the foundation of the award, then it is open for the tenure holders to file a fresh writ petition questioning the correctness of Government Order dated 01.06.2015 viz-a-viz the Act of

2013. It further observed that "they shall also be entitled to receive the compensation, which has been awarded under the award dated

26.12.2015, under protest, which shall be released not later than one month from today." Thus petition, which is challenging the vires of Government Order dated 01.06.2015 on the aforesaid grounds is maintainable. The consequential relief of re-determination of compensation has been granted by us because it is not the case of the petitioners of Writ C No. 29916 of 2017 who are aggrieved, that there are other grounds on which they seek to challenge the award, for which, of course, they would have had to take recourse to the Act of 2013. The challenge being confined to the validity of the Government Order dated

01.06.2015, this petition is maintainable in light of the aforesaid and -6- WPIL No. - 12510 of 2016 also, as, the law being settled, we see no reason why we should be bound by technicalities in the facts of this case.

10. For all these reasons, as the learned counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy us that the legal position is otherwise and as there are direct judgments on the issue involved, we are of the opinion that the Government Order dated 01.06.2015 prescribing the cut-off date for determination of compensation in matters such as the one involved herein, as the date of the initial publication under the Old Act of 1894, is not sustainable. It is accordingly quashed.

11. As regards WPIL No.12510 of 2016 is concerned as the petitioner is not personally aggrieved therefore in that PIL the declaration of law as made herein will apply. In Writ-C No.29916 of 2017 the compensation was determined by the award date 26.12.2015 on the basis of initial publication under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and not on the basis of

01.01.2014 as was statutorily obligatory, therefore,the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly U.P./opposite party no.6 will have to take consequential action in compliance of this judgment qua the petitioners of Writ-C No.29916 of 2017, consequently, the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners of Writ-C No.29916 of 2017 will have to be redetermined qua the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid and paid to them as per law at the earliest, say within three months.

12. The writ petitions stand allowed but in the aforesaid terms. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) November 24, 2025 Ram. RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench