C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.@mdashThe petitioner''s parents were the joint owners in possession of 50 cents of property comprised in Survey No.
522/16 of Vallurkunnam Village. Out of the said extent, in respect of 0.1246 Ares of land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act 1894'') to acquire the same from their possession. While the acquisition proceedings are under way they
died and thereupon, the property devolved upon the legal heirs including the petitioner herein. In respect of the said extent proposed to be
acquired Ext. P2 notice under Section 9(3) of Act, 1894 was issued. Ext. P2 is dated 04/02/2014. The contention of the petitioner is that since the
Act 1894 was repealed with effect from 01/01/2014 and the new Act viz., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ''Act 30 of 2013'') was introduced with effect from 01/01/2014 notice under the repealed
Act should not have been issued. That apart, it is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions under Section 24(2) of Act 30 of
2013 in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Act but, no award was passed thereunder the determination of the
compensation shall be in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30 of 2013. If that be so, according to the petitioner, Ext. P2 notice should
not have been issued and notice should have been issued in terms of the provisions under the Act 30 of 2013. To lend support to the said
contention the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Harakchand Musirimal Solanki. In the said decision the Hon''ble Apex Court held that under Clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the Act 30 of 2013
where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Act 1894 but no award was passed, then the provisions of Act 30 of 2013
should apply relating to the determination of compensation. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well. A counter-affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the third respondent. It is admitted therein that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the property in
question while the Act, 1894 was in force. It is also admitted thereunder that Ext. P2 notice was issued after the coming into force of Act 30 of
2013. It is the further contention therein that notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, 1894 was issued to the persons including the petitioner, whose
properties are proposed to be acquired under the notification in question only for the purpose of appearing before the Land Acquisition Officer on
or before the appointing day with original documents to prove their title over the land and file claims and objections. It is further stated therein that
despite the receipt of such notice none of them appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer or produced any document to prove their ownership
over the land in question. It is also stated therein that the acquisition proceedings in question are in the final stage. A statement in paragraph 10
assumes relevance in this context. It reads thus:
As regards the new Land Acquisition Act, the Government have not issued any order or instruction. Hence the third respondent is bound to
continue the Land Acquisition Proceedings on the basis of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, till the receipt of clear orders from Government and Higher
Authorities.
I am at a loss to understand how such an affidavit could be sworn in despite the coming into force of Act 30 of 2013.
2. In the context of the aforesaid statement in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it is relevant to refer to Section 1(3) of Act 30 of 2013. It
reads thus:
1(3). It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint:
Provided that the Central Government shall appoint such date within three months from the date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 receives the assent of the President.
Indisputably, the notification was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II on 19th December, 2013 vide SO 3729(E) and it came
into force with effect from 01/01/2014. When the Act 30 of 2013 came into force with effect from 01/01/2014 by virtue of the specific provisions
thereunder how could an officer say and swear that the said Act would not operate until issuance of any order or instruction by the Government
and that till receipt of such orders from the Government or Higher authorities the third respondent is bound to consider the land acquisition
proceedings based on the Act, 1894. It is also apposite to refer to Section 114(1) of Act 30 of 2013. It reads thus:
114. Repeal and saving.--(1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.
Thus, after the coming into force of Act 30 of 2013 with effect from 01/01/2014 by virtue of operation of Section 114(1) thereunder the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 stands repealed. Though there is a saving provision under Section 114(2) it is admitted by both the sides that it is
inapplicable in view of the facts obtained in this case.
It is evident from Section 114(2) that the repeal under sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the application of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeals. A joint reading of the provisions under Section 114(2) and Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, would reveal that after the coming into force of Act 30 of 2013 to know whether any proceedings is saved for the repeal of
the Act, 1894, the saving provision under Act 30 of 2013 has to be looked into. The only saving provision which assumes relevance in the context
of Section 114(2) of Act 30 of 2013 is Section 24 of the said Act. Virtually, it is taking into consideration of such aspects that the Hon''ble Apex
Court referred to Clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 and held that in respect of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act,
1894 but no award under Section 11 was passed while the said Act was in force, then the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 shall apply relating the
determination of compensation. The respondents cannot say that Ext. P2 notice is not one relating to the determination of compensation. When it is
admitted that Ext. P2 notice was issued in relation to the determination of compensation, in the light of the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in
Solanki''s case (supra) and also in terms of the provisions under Clause (a) of Section 24(1) of Act 30 of 2013 the notice for appearance as also
the determination of compensation in such cases should have been under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 and not under the repealed Land
Acquisition Act of 1894. In this case, there is no case for the respondents that an award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was passed. True that,
the proceedings were initiated while the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was in force. In the said circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that in
respect of the land involved in this writ petition the further proceedings in relation to the payment of compensation can only be under the Act 30 of
2013. Subject to the said observation, this writ petition is disposed of. In view of this judgment the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to issue
fresh notice relating the payment of compensation to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30 of 2013 fixing the date for
appearance and production of such documents and to determine the compensation in accordance with Act 30 of 2013.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
