Case at a Glance
The U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad notified land in Saharanpur for a housing scheme in 2004 and 2010, deposited over ₹20 crore with the land acquisition officer, but no award had been made even by mid-2026, and compensation was being worked out with 2004 as the reference date. Landowners sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed. The Allahabad High Court held that the acquisition does not lapse, but, following Hem Chandra v. State of U.P., compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act with 1 January 2014 as the reference date, and directed redetermination within three months.
The petitioners own Plots 59, 60/1 and 60/2 in village Mavi Khurd, District Saharanpur, measuring about 18,226, 13,770 and 13,771 square metres. The Parishad issued a notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 on 12 June 2004 and under Section 32(1) on 7 August 2010 for a housing and land development scheme on Delhi Road.
According to the Parishad, the compensation rate had been fixed with 12 June 2004 as the reference date, financial approval granted, and ₹20,39,12,702 deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saharanpur. It said any delay in declaring the award lay with the SLAO. As of 16 June 2026 no award had been declared. The petitioners sought to quash the notifications and a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed. The Parishad and the State accepted that the ratio of Hem Chandra, approved by the Supreme Court, held the field.
The Key Question Before the Court
Where land was notified under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam but no award was made before the 2013 Act came into force, does the acquisition lapse, and what is the reference date for compensation?
No Lapse, But Compensation on the 2013 Act and the 2014 Date
The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Hem Chandra v. State of U.P., against which the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP on 17 March 2025, and on M/s Bir Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. These hold that an acquisition under the Adhiniyam does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, but where no award was made before 1 January 2014, compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act with that date as the reference date. In Bir Hotels, though the writ was dismissed, the Court had held that “the date of reference for determining the compensation would be 01.01.2014.”
The Court also quoted the Supreme Court’s view in Chandra Shekhar that the authority “should have determined compensation as per the provisions of the New Act, 2013”, and noted that applying the 2013 Act’s compensation provisions saves Section 55 of the Adhiniyam from challenge under Article 14. The determination with 12 June 2004 as the reference date was not in accordance with Hem Chandra, and the SLAO’s delay in declaring the award was described as unjustified. Thus, “even though the acquisition would not lapse but the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation” under the 2013 Act.
What the Court Actually Held
- The acquisition under the Adhiniyam does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- As no award was made before 1 January 2014, compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act with 1 January 2014 as the reference date, not 12 June 2004.
- The State respondents must redetermine compensation for Plots 59, 60/1 and 60/2 within three months of production of a certified copy.
- The admissible amount must be distributed within two months of quantification; the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It protects landowners from being paid at 2004 values where the award was not made until after the 2013 Act.
- It confirms the Hem Chandra line for acquisitions by the Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.
- It sets time limits for an acquisition that had stalled for over two decades.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Landowners
- If land was notified under the Parishad Adhiniyam and no award was made before 1 January 2014, insist on compensation under the 2013 Act valued as on that date.
- A plea of lapse may not succeed, but the higher compensation basis is available.
For Counsel
- Cite Hem Chandra (SLP dismissed on 17 March 2025) and Bir Hotels on the reference date.
- Seek time-bound determination and distribution, as granted here.
Key Takeaways
- The acquisition did not lapse.
- Compensation must follow the 2013 Act.
- The reference date is 1 January 2014, not 2004.
- Redetermination within three months and payment within two months after that.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the acquisition lapse because no award was made for years?
No. Following Hem Chandra, the Court held that an acquisition under the Adhiniyam does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Why does the reference date matter?
Compensation depends on the market value on the reference date. Using 1 January 2014 instead of 12 June 2004 reflects a decade of change in land values.
What is the deadline for payment?
Compensation must be redetermined within three months of production of a certified copy, and the amount distributed within two months of quantification.
Conclusion
The landowners did not get their land back, but they will not be paid at 2004 values for an award that was still not made in 2026. The Court tied compensation to the 2013 Act and set clear deadlines.
Practical takeaway: In acquisitions by U.P. development bodies where no award was made before 2014, landowners should claim compensation under the 2013 Act with 1 January 2014 as the reference date.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com