Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal wherein the appellant claimed that Gujarat High Court had erroneously held that the date for determination of market value of yet to be acquired, He-0-11-41 sq. meters land shall be 01-1-2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act); the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Manmohan*, JJ., opined that proviso to Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act lays down the methodology for computing the market value of the land on the date of the acquisition notification. The use of the word “shall” in Section 26(1) proviso is reflective of the legislative mandate that Section 11 Notification is the date for determination of the compensation.
The Court opined that the date of enactment of 2013 Act i.e. 01-1-2014 has no relevance to fresh acquisition initiated under the statute. The date of 01-1-2014 is relevant only if land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where no award had been made before the enforcement of the 2013 Act.
Appellant is the owner of Revenue Block No.119 (new Revenue Block No.126), situated at village Moje Sarkuva, Taluka Vyara, District Tapi, measuring He-0-36-87 sq. meters (total area). Out of this land, an area measuring He-0-17-84 sq. meters had been acquired earlier for the purpose of constructing the Ukai High Level Cantor Canal. However, the appellant’s counsel emphasised that additional portion of He-0-11-41 sq. meters had been utilized without carrying out any acquisition proceeding or payment of compensation.
The appellant contended that the High Court failed to consider Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act especially its proviso.
Counsel for the respondent admitted that the acquiring body namely, the Executive Engineer, Ukai Division-1 at Ukai Dam has till date not been able to submit the proposal for acquisition of He-0-11-41 sq. meters on the online portal known as “PM Gati Shaki Portal” due to a technical error and assured that the process of acquisition would be commenced as soon as the technical error is resolved.
Perusing the matter, the Court pointed out that the issue which arises for consideration in the instant Appeal is the interpretation of proviso to Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act in the context of the date that is relevant for determining the market value of the land being acquired.
The Court explained that the legislative intent behind proviso to Section 26(1) is to ensure that the landowners receive fair compensation reflective of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. By fixing the date of 01-1-2014 as the date for determination of market value, High Court’s impugned order deprived the Appellant of compensation at the 2023 rates, which must be considerably higher.
The Court further pointed out that the legislative scheme does not give discretion to the Courts to select a date for valuation. On the contrary, the 2013 Act expressly mandates that compensation/valuation must be determined as of the date of Notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act — which in this instant case is yet to be issued.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Dipankar Datta, J.
