Summary
Under the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the market value of land being acquired must be determined as on the date of the notification under Section 11. The High Court erred in fixing 1 January 2014, the date of commencement of the Act, as the valuation date for a portion of the appellant's land that the State admittedly used for a canal without any acquisition and for which no Section 11 notification has yet been issued.
Issues
- Whether, for land yet to be acquired under the 2013 Act, the date for determining market value is the date of the Section 11 notification (proviso to Section 26(1)) or the date of commencement of the Act, 1 January 2014.
Provisions considered
- Section 26(1), proviso, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The proviso, which says the date for determination of market value 'shall' be the date of the Section 11 notification, lays down the methodology for computing market value; the word 'shall' reflects a legislative mandate leaving courts no discretion to select another valuation date. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14)
- Section 11, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Compensation for a fresh acquisition under the Act can be determined only once a Section 11 notification is issued for the land; here none had yet been issued, so the valuation date must await that notification. (¶¶ 6, 9, 11, 13, 14)
Held
- The proviso to Section 26(1) mandates that market value be determined as on the date of the notification under Section 11. The legislative scheme gives courts no discretion to choose a different date for valuation; the use of 'shall' shows that the Section 11 notification date is the date for determination of compensation. (¶¶ 9, 11, 13)
- The date of enactment of the 2013 Act, 1 January 2014, has no relevance to a fresh acquisition initiated under that Act. It matters only where acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and no award had been made before the 2013 Act came into force. (¶ 12)
- The legislative intent is that landowners receive compensation reflecting the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. By fixing 1 January 2014 as the valuation date, the impugned order deprived the appellant of compensation at the considerably higher current rates. (¶ 10)
- The State's own affidavit admitted that the additional portion of the appellant's land had been used for canal construction without any acquisition or compensation, and its counsel undertook that acquisition would commence once a technical error on the online portal was resolved. (¶¶ 4, 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 21 August 2024 in SCA No. 20392 of 2023 set aside; the market value of the additional portion of Survey No. 119 is to be determined as on the date on which the respondents issue the notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.