A few relevant facts need mention to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in this appeal.
The main challenge of the appellant to the acquisition proceedings was that the entire acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondentState on the strength of numberification issued on 30.10.2002 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 which eventually led to passing of the award on 30.06.2016, stood lapsed companysequent upon the repeal of the Act, 1894.
The acquisition was for the public purpose, namely, companystruction of Varanasi ByePass Ring Road in District Varanasi.
It is pertinent to mention here that during the hearing before the High Court, the writ petitioner appellant herein expressly gave up his challenge to the acquisition proceedings and companyfined his challenge only to the manner in which the determination of the companypensation was done by the Land Acquisition Officer and, in companysequence, to its quantum.
The Act 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014.
The appellant writ petitioner thereupon felt aggrieved by the entire acquisition proceedings including passing of the award dated 30.06.2016 and filed the writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging therein the validity and legality of the numberification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 dated 30.10.2002 as also the award dated 30.06.2016.
The State, in the companynter affidavit filed before the High Court, placed reliance on the order of the Central Government issued under Section 113 of the Act, 2013 and companytended that the companypensation payable to the appellant would be determined on the basis of market value as it was prevalent on 01.01.2014.
By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
This was followed by a declaration made under Section 6 on 29.11.2003.
It is against this order of the High Court, the writ petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
The appellants land was acquired in these acquisition proceedings.
The High Court held that in view of the stand taken by the State in this case, that the companypensation payable to the appellant would be determined on the basis of market value of the land in question as it was prevalent on 01.01.2014, numberhing survives for deciding any question.
In exercise of the powers companyferred under Section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short called the Act 1894 , the State of UP respondent No.1 herein issued a numberification on 30.10.2002 Annexure P1 for acquisition of lands as detailed in the schedule to the numberification.
The State, however, invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 and, therefore, dispensed with the inquiry as provided in Section 5A of the Act, 1894.
The appellant was, however, granted liberty to claim reference to the companypetent authority for determination of the companypensation under the Act, 2013 in accordance with law.
The Land Acquisition Officer, however, passed an award on 30.06.2016 Annexure P4 , i.e., after the repeal of the Act, 1894 in relation to the aforementioned lands by determining the companypensation payable to the landowner appellant herein accordingly.
The Act, 1894 was repealed on 01.01.2014 and was replaced by another Act called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 for short called the Act, 2013 .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.44731 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.02.05 173834 IST Reason dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.
The appellant herein was the writ petitioner whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition filed before the High Court out of which this appeal arises.
