The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment on the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, and not the date on the notification itself, determines the initiation of acquisition proceedings. If such publication occurs after the repeal of the Act, 1894, the proceedings are void ab initio.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Lohia Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd., purchased land measuring 0.5020 hectares (Khasra No. 431P) in Village Aahmamau, Lucknow, via a registered sale deed dated 05.02.2007. The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 27.12.2013, for the acquisition of this land. However, the notification was published in newspapers (Dainik Jagran on 02.01.2014 and Amar Ujala on 03.01.2014) and in the Official Gazette on 04.01.2014, all after the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014. A public notice was issued on 06.02.2014, and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on 23.01.2015. The award was declared on 13.07.2016 and amended on 02.12.2022.
Key Facts
The petitioner’s land (0.5020 hectares) was part of a larger acquisition of 2.737 hectares under Khasra No. 431P.
The Act, 2013 repealed the Act, 1894 effective 01.01.2014, subject to the saving clause under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The petitioner contended that the acquisition proceedings were void as they were initiated under a repealed enactment.
The State argued that the notification dated 27.12.2013 sufficed to initiate proceedings before the repeal.
Procedural History
27.12.2013: Notification under Section 4(1) issued (but not published).
02.01.2014: Notification published in Dainik Jagran.
03.01.2014: Notification published in Amar Ujala.
04.01.2014: Notification published in the Official Gazette.
06.02.2014: Public notice issued.
23.01.2015: Declaration under Section 6 issued.
13.07.2016: Award declared.
02.12.2022: Award amended.
2023: Writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the impugned Section 4(1) notification dated 27.12.2013 and Section 6 declaration dated 23.01.2015 on the ground that they were issued under a repealed enactment.
A declaration that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land had lapsed.
A direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s possession during the pendency of the writ petition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether land acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 were initiated prior to 01.01.2014, the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force. If not, whether the notifications published after the repeal were void ab initio, and what the legal consequences would be under the saving clause (Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897).
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The acquisition proceedings were initiated under a repealed enactment (Act, 1894), rendering them void ab initio.
The timeline prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was violated, and the award was rendered beyond the two-year limit under Section 11-A, making it unsustainable.
The petitioner remained in possession of the land, and no compensation had been paid, as admitted in the counter-affidavits.
For the Respondents
The Section 4(1) notification bore the date 27.12.2013, prior to the repeal of the Act, 1894, and thus the proceedings were validly initiated.
The writ petition was delayed, as the acquisition proceedings began in 2013-14, and the Court should decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
The Government Order dated 13.07.2016 justified the acquisition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the scheme of the Act, 1894 and the Act, 2013, along with relevant precedents, to determine the point of initiation of acquisition proceedings.
Legal Principles on Initiation of Proceedings
Section 4(1) Notification as the Starting Point:The Court relied on Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (1975) 4 SCC 296, where a Constitution Bench held that land acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This principle was reaffirmed in Deepak Aggarwal v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) 6 SCC 512, where the Supreme Court held that the issuance and publication of the Section 4(1) notification is the condition precedent for initiation of proceedings. The Court observed:
“The point of initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the LA Act for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, is issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification in the Official Gazette of the appropriate Government.”
Publication in Official Gazette is Mandatory:The Court cited Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1967 SC 1704), which held that the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are mandatory requirements under Section 4(1). Without compliance, the proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated. This was reiterated in Raja Ram Jaiswal v. Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad (1985) 3 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court held:
“Unless the decision is notified in the Government Gazette by an appropriate notification, the proceedings for acquisition cannot be said to have been initiated and the decision would remain a paper decision.”
Effect of Repeal:The Court examined Section 114 of the Act, 2013, which repealed the Act, 1894, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which saves rights, privileges, and liabilities accrued under a repealed enactment. However, the Court held that no valid proceedings were initiated under the Act, 1894 prior to 01.01.2014, and thus nothing was saved under Section 6. The Court observed:
“As, there was no initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 while it was in operation i.e. prior to its repeal on 01.01.2014, therefore, there is no question of its saving whether under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 or under Section 114(2) of the said Act read with Section 6 of the Act, 1897.”
Date of Publication, Not Date on Notification, is Relevant:The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the date on the notification (27.12.2013) sufficed to initiate proceedings. It held that the date of publication in the Official Gazette (04.01.2014) and the last of the three publications (newspapers, Official Gazette, and public notice) is the relevant date for initiation. Since all publications occurred after 01.01.2014, the proceedings were void.
Application to the Facts
The Court held that the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration were published after the repeal of the Act, 1894, and thus were void ab initio. The acquisition proceedings were not saved under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 or Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as no valid initiation occurred under the Act, 1894.
Equitable Considerations
The Court noted that the acquisition was for a 45-meter public road, a public purpose, and that the proceedings had been pending since 2014. The petitioner remained in possession, and no compensation had been paid. Balancing equities, the Court directed that compensation be recalculated under the Act, 2013 based on current rates, rather than the 2014 notification date.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
The acquisition proceedings were held to be void ab initio, as they were initiated under a repealed enactment.
The respondents were directed to recalculate compensation under the Act, 2013 based on current rates, within three months.
The respondents were restrained from taking possession of the land until the recalculated compensation was paid.
The entire acquisition proceedings were to be completed within six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Initiation of Proceedings Requires Strict Compliance
Publication in Official Gazette is Non-Negotiable: Courts will strictly scrutinize compliance with Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Mere issuance of a notification without publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality will not suffice to initiate proceedings.
Date of Publication, Not Date on Notification, is Critical: The last date of publication (newspapers, Official Gazette, or public notice) is the date of initiation. Notifications bearing dates prior to repeal but published afterward are void.
Repeal of Enactment Nullifies Subsequent Proceedings
No Saving Under General Clauses Act: If acquisition proceedings are not validly initiated under a repealed enactment before its repeal, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not save them. There must be substantive compliance with the repealed law prior to repeal.
Act, 2013 Applies Prospectively: Proceedings initiated after 01.01.2014 must comply with the Act, 2013, which provides higher compensation and better safeguards for landowners.
Equitable Relief May Be Granted Despite Void Proceedings
Public Purpose Considerations: Courts may balance equities by directing recalculation of compensation under the Act, 2013, even if the proceedings are void, to avoid defeating public purposes (e.g., road construction).
Possession Remains with Landowner: If possession has not been taken and compensation not paid, landowners retain possession until compliance with court directions.
