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In the meantime, the concerned was repealed and was replaced by the “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.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.
[1] Judgments:
[embeddoc url=”https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/13649/13649_2017_Judgement_05-Feb-2019.pdf” download=”all”]