SC: Once the State has taken defense that compensation in the matter of the appellant shall be determined with regard given to the date as basis, then that stand should be taken and appellant must be satisfied

The Apex Court on 05.02.2019, in Hori Lal v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors[1], dismissed the appeal that had been made against the    High   Court   of Judicature at Allahabad’s order and judgment wherein the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

FACTS:

The appellant being the writ petitioner while the respondents were the respondents in the that had been filed in the High Court from which the appeal had arisen .While exercising  its    powers as enshrined  under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,  a notification regarding the acquisition of lands  for  public purpose had been issued by the  State of UP .The urgency clause as specified under Section 17 was invoked by the State thereby dispensing with  the inquiry being mentioned  in Section 5­A of the Act, 1894  along  with a declaration  under  Section 6 . During the proceedings of acquisition, the land of the appellant had been acquired.

 In the meantime, the concerned was repealed and was replaced by the “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.   However, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer after the repealing of the Act, 1894 with regard to the abovementioned   lands   for the determination of  the compensation which was made to be payable to  the appellant.

Being aggrieved, a writ petition was filed before the Allahabad   High   Court, wherein the petitioner had challenge the validity and legality of such notification being issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 as well as the award.

CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT:
It was contended by the appellant that the while   proceedings that had been initiated  by  the  respondent upon  such notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 shall stand lapsed due to the  the repealing of the Act, 1894.

CONTENTION RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT:

On the other hand, reliance was placed upon the Central Government’s order that had been   issued under Section 113 of the Act,   2013   while contending    that   the   compensation which is to be made payable to the appellant shall be determined upon the basis   of   market   value.

The writ petition was eventually dismissed by the High Court by upholding that such compensation which is to be made payable to the appellant shall be based upon the market value of such land.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court of India.

 ISSUE:  Was the High Court justified while dismissing the  writ petition filed by the appellant and if such reasoning  cited is legally justified and proper?

DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:

The Apex Court while affirming to the decision held by the High Court dismissed the appeal while upholding that once the State had taken defense of the compensation to be determined upon the basis of date then such compensation shall stand satisfied.