STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-State has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 11.7.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed.

(2.) Learned State Counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents. In-fact, the compensation amount was liable to be determined on the date the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1894') had been issued, i.e., on 13.1.2003. Possession of the land in question was taken in the year 2004 after issuance of Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and 80% of the amount of compensation had already been disbursed to the claimants. As per Section 24(l)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013'), where no award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made, then all provisions of this Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per Section 113 (2) of the Act of 2013, every order made under the said provision was liable to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the question involved in the present case is no longer res Integra. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the compensation was liable to be determined in terms of the Act of 2013 and the market value of the land was to be taken as it existed on 1.1.2014. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Allahabad High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, placed on record with the reply filed by the respondents.