Aasha Verma vs Commissioner Awas Evam Vikas Parishad … on 24 January, 2025

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Aasha Verma vs Commissioner Awas Evam Vikas Parishad … on 24 January, 2025

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

                                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.990-991 OF 2025
                            (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.19550-19551/2021)


                      AASHA VERMA & ORS.                                         APPELLANTS




                                                     VERSUS




                      COMMISSIONER AWAS EVAM VIKAS
                      PARISHAD UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                              RESPONDENTS


                                                     O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated

16.06.2021 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad, inter alia holding that the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the “2013 Act”) shall

not be applicable to the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas

Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (in short, the “1965 Act”) even

though these provisions would be applicable in case of a

Signature Not Verified
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.01.29
17:06:20 IST
1894 (in short, the “1894 Act”).

Reason:

1

3. The facts of the instant case provide that the land

of the appellants measuring 1.825 hectares comprising

Khasra No. 455 situated in Village – Kaladundu, Pargana –

Lakhimpur, Tehsil and District – Lakhimpur Kheri was

sought to be acquired by the State-authority. For this

purpose, Notification under Section 28 of the 1965 Act

was issued on 04.09.2010. This was essentially equivalent

to a Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

Thereafter, Declaration under Section 32 of 1965 Act was

published on 02.09.2017, which was again equivalent to

Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.

Subsequently, after a lapse of 10 years from the

acquiring Notification, the Award was passed by the

Commissioner, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on

29.01.2020.

4. It goes without saying that in the interregnum, the

2013 Act had come into force with effect from 01.01.2014.

It is also admitted that since the 1965 Act did not

provide an independent mechanism to assess compensation

or the procedure thereof, the one contemplated under the

1894 Act was required to be followed, in terms of Section

55 of the 1965 Act.

5. We have heard learned senior counsel/counsel for

the parties, and perused the record.

2

6. At the outset, we hold doubtlessly that provisions

of the 2013 Act are attracted for the purpose of awarding

compensation to the present appellants. We say so by

placing reliance on Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, which

mandates that where the acquisition proceedings are

pending as on 01.01.2014, the award in respect of such

pending acquisition shall be passed in accordance with

provisions of 2013 Act, not the 1894 Act. In the case in

hand, the acquisition process was initiated on

04.09.2010, but declaration under Section 32 of the 1965

Act was issued only on 02.09.2017, by which time the 2013

Act had already come into force. Needless to say, once

the 2013 Act held the field, the 1965 Act could no longer

operate within the contours of the 1894 Act, and the

pending acquisition has to be compensated under the new

scheme contemplated by the 2013 Act.

7. That being so, we have no hesitation in holding the

High Court’s view in the impugned order is completely

misdirected, at least insofar as it provided that the

provisions of the 2013 Act were not attracted in the

present case.

8. For the reasons aforestated, the instant appeals

are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set

aside. The appellants are held entitled to compensation

in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. The

3
Land Acquisition Collector is directed to pass an

appropriate award within a period of three months,

without prejudice to the rights of the parties to

challenge the same before an appropriate forum.

……………………..J.
(SURYA KANT)

……………………….J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi;

January 24, 2025




                                     4
ITEM NO.34                 COURT NO.3                SECTION XI
                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19550-19551/2021
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-06-2021
in LA No.9373/2021 25-08-2021 in CMA No. 79809/2021 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]
AASHA VERMA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER AWAS EVAM VIKAS
PARISHAD UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 23522/2023 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 299422/2024
– CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 154234/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 154240/2021 – EXEMPTION
FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 24-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Adv.

Mr. S. Vinod, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Pal Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Jaganathan, Adv.

Ms. Pallavi S., Adv.

Ms. Kritik Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                (signed order is placed on the file)



                                    5