Court No. - 1
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 476 of 2021 Appellant :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Respondent :- Sattar And 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Saran Counsel for Respondent :- Gautam,Gautam
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award of Mr. Saiyad Waiz Miyan, the then Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Meerut dated 27.06.2019 passed in L.A.R. No. 132/2006/19/2019.
2. Heard Mr. Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. L.K. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3. The short submission that Mr. Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the appellant raised in support of this appeal, is one of jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Meerut (for short, 'the Authority') to decide the reference in question by means of the impugned judgment and award.
His submission is that a notification bearing no. 18/भभ0 अ 0/दद-446(74-75)/ ददनननांक 02 नवम्बर, 1974 (published on 01.03.1975) was issued under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965'), which is equivalent to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894'). By the aforesaid notification, the land of the claimant-respondents was proposed to be acquired. This was followed by a notification dated 23.04.1977 under Section 32 of the Act of 1965 (published on 14.05.1977), which is equivalent to a notification under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1894. After publication of the notification under Section 32 of the Act of 1965, the appellant-Parishad issued notices to the land holders under Section 9(1)(2) of the Act of 1894, collectively and severally.
4. It appears that the Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing parties whose land was acquired, including the claimant-respondents, passed an award dated 15.04.1988, ordering compensation to be paid @ Rs. 20.92 per square yard. Admittedly, the claimant-respondents were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer/ADM, Land Acquisition and preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The reference involved in this case, to wit, Reference No. 132 of 2006 was tagged along with leading Reference No. 166 of 2006. It has figured in the impugned award that at the instance of the claimants, references were made to the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar before whom written statements were filed by the appellants and the State. The references were apparently made in the year 2006 under the Act of 1894, but upon enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013'), and establishment of the Authority thereunder, this reference along with the connected references were transferred from the Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar to the Authority. About this fact, the parties are ad idem.
5. The issue is about the absence of jurisdiction with the Authority to determine the reference, giving rise to the impugned award. It is based on the submission that the Act of 2013 is applicable to references made after enforcement of that Act and not to references already pending before the learned District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, when the Act was enforced. This question had fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 22469 of 2019 Champo Devi vs. Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition and Resettlement Authority, Meerut and 4 others, decided on 17.07.2019. In Champo Devi (Supra), after an elaborate consideration of the issue, it was held by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J. speaking for the Bench:
"11. From perusal of the record, it is clear that L.A.R. filed by the aggrieved persons under the Act, 1894 which were pending before the enforcement of Act No.30 of 2013 were not liable to be transferred before respondent No.1. Although, there was some confusion but after the circular dated December 15, 2018 was issued this Court but by way of subsequent notification dated March 16, 2019 that confusion was removed."
6. This decision has been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal Defective No. 178 of 2020 U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Faragat (Deceased) and 12 others, decided on 27.01.2021. The decision in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Faragat (Deceased) (Supra) followed the Division Bench in Champo Devi, set aside the award of the Authority and remitted the matter to the learned District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar to decide the pending reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
7. At this stage, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents submits that parties had consented to the Authority's jurisdiction, and, therefore, it does not lie in the appellant's mouth to say now that the impugned award is without jurisdiction. He dilates on his submission to say that once consent has been given by both sides, it is not open to the appellant to question the jurisdiction of the Authority, inasmuch as the consent given on behalf of the appellant before the Authority and submitting jurisdiction, estops the appellant from urging this point before the Court that the Authority has no jurisdiction.
8. It is a well settled proposition of law that consent neither confers jurisdiction, creates or destroys it. Jurisdiction is something that flows from the Statute. Since it has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Champo Devi that the Authority has no jurisdiction to decide a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, pending before the District Judge on the date when the Act of 2013 was enforced, the submission of Mr. Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents is devoid of merit.
9. In view of the decisions in Champo Devi and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, this Court is of opinion that the impugned award passed by the Authority is clearly without jurisdiction. The pending Reference No. 132 of 2006 before the learned District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar or the Additional District Judge to whom it was assigned, could not be transferred to the Authority that was subsequently established upon enforcement of the Act of 2013. The reference would be decided under the Act of 1894 by the learned District Judge or an Additional District Judge under Section 18 of the last mentioned Act.
10. In this view of the matter, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 27.06.2019, insofar as it relates to L.A.R. No. 132/2006/19/2019 is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the reference shall stand restored to the file of the learned District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, who shall proceed to decide the same himself, or assign it to an Additional District Judge for decision, in accordance with law, after hearing all parties concerned. It is further directed that the learned Judge, before whom the reference comes up, shall make it convenient to decide the reference within six months next. Costs easy.
11. Let this order be communicated to the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Meerut and the learned District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Deepak/Brijesh Maurya