( 2025:JHHC:10374 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 196 of 2023 Mahendra Prasad Sahu, aged about 73 years, son of Late Narayan Sahu, resident of Village- Pachrukhi, PO and PS: Dhanwar, District-Giridih … Petitioner/Appellant Versus District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih, PO, PS and District- Giridih … Opposite Party/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC-I : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate --- 14/23.01.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th June 2023 passed by learned Principal District Judge, cum Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Hazaribagh in L.R. Case No. 7 of 2017 whereby the reference case referred under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2013’) has been held to be not maintainable and the same has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant while giving the background as recorded in the impugned judgment submits that it is not in dispute that the notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as aforesaid Act of 1894) was issued on 09.10.2002; the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made on 31.10.2002 and an Award was prepared on 23.07.2004 for an amount of Rs. 68,040/- out of which Rs. 54,432/- being 80% of the Award was paid to the appellant on 23.07.2004 itself which the appellant received with objection. He submits that on 03.09.2004 an application under Section 18(2) (b) of the aforesaid Act of 1894 was filed before the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih and the same remained pending awaiting reference and in the meantime the aforesaid Act of 2013 came into force. He submits that as per the ( 2025:JHHC:10374 ) 2 impugned judgment, on 15.07.2017 a petition was filed to refer the dispute under Section 64 of the aforesaid Act of 2013 and consequently a reference was made on 22.07.2017. He submits that the earlier Land Acquisition case was numbered as L.A. Case No. 15 of 2002-03 and it was subsequently renumbered as land Acquisition Case No. 11 of 2015-16. The learned counsel submits that it is further not in dispute that the possession of the land was duly taken pursuant to acquisition made under the Act of 1894. The learned counsel submits that a number of issues were framed but the learned court ultimately held that the reference itself was not maintainable. 4. By referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal and Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the learned counsel submits that the reference having been held to be not maintainable, the right of the appellant to get the matter referred by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih in terms of the initial application for reference which was to be referred under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the concerned District Judge at Giridih is required to be protected. He submits that the impugned judgment does not indicate anything to the aforesaid effect and therefore appropriate order is required to be passed. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment requires no interference and the same has been passed in accordance with law. 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties this court finds that the as per the arguments of the appellant , the grievance is limited to the extent that right of the appellant to get the reference made under the provisions of aforesaid Act of 1894 is required to be kept intact which has not been considered by the learned trial court. The sole point for consideration is – Whether the learned Trial Court having held that reference was not maintainable under the New Act of 2013 ought to have observed that the appellant may still approach the District Land Acquisition Officer, Giridih for seeking reference in terms of the Old Act of 1894 in ( 2025:JHHC:10374 ) 3 connection with which the appellant had already approached way back in the year 2004? 7. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the materials on record , this court finds that the learned Appellate Court has recorded a finding in paragraph 13 while deciding issue no. 1 with regard to the maintainability of the reference and has held that the New Act of 2013 is not applicable in the instant case and therefore the reference is not maintainable before the Authority who is not empowered to entertain the reference under the Old Act of 1894 and is only empowered to entertain reference under the New Act of 2013. The said finding does not call for any interference. The findings of the learned trial court is quoted as under:- “ However, I find that, vide the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has over-ruled the above referred previous judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. In the instant case, admittedly, the Appropriate Government has taken possession of the acquired land, which is under reference in the instant case. Furthermore, award u/s 11 of the old Land Acquisition Act has also been made on 23.07.2004. With regards Section 24(2) of the new Act, 2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has summarized the entire aspect of Section 24 of the new Act, 2013 in para 366, which is re- produced as hereunder :- “366.1 - Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a), in case the award is not made as on 01.01.2014, i.e. the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.” However, in the instant case, the award has already been made prior to 01.01.2014 i.e. on 23.07.2004. “366. 2 - In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years, excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then the proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, under the 1894 Act, as if it has not been repealed. ( 2025:JHHC:10374 ) 4 366.3 - The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2), between possession and compensation, has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more, prior to the commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken, nor the compensation has been paid. In other words, in case, possession has been taken, but compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken, then there is no lapse.” In the instant case, 80% of the awarded compensation has admittedly been paid and admittedly, the possession has also been taken. As such, there is no lapse of proceeding under the old Act of 1894. “366.4 - The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, does not include, a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2), in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings, then all beneficiaries (landowners), as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case, the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. 366.5 - In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that, acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.” In the instant case, admittedly, the land owner has received 80% of the compensation amount, under protest and had sought enhanced compensation as per the Act of 2013, as such, as held by the Hon'ble Court herein above, he cannot claim that, the ( 2025:JHHC:10374 ) 5 acquisition proceeding had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. “366. 6 - The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b). 366. 7 - The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State, there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2).” In the instant case, the award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894 and the land has vested in the State Government and there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 11. I further find that, the proviso to Section 24(2) of the new Act, 2013 says that, - “Where an Award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of new Act 2013.” . In the instant case, admittedly 80% of the awarded compensation amount has been paid. 12. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that, the first party herein is not entitled for claiming compensation of land in question, which is under reference in the instant reference case under the new Act 2013. This issue is accordingly decided against the first party. 13. Now coming to the other issues, I begin with the Issue no. I, whether the petition under reference is maintainable ? As held above, while deciding the Issue no. II, as the new Act, 2013, is not applicable in the instant case, therefore, the instant reference is not maintainable before this Authority, which is not empowered to entertain reference under the old Act of 1894 and is only empowered to entertain reference under the new Act, 2013. As such, this Issue is decided accordingly, against the first party. 14. With regards the other Issues, I am of the view that, as the instant reference is not maintainable before this Authority, constituted under the new Act, 2013, therefore, the decision of ( 2025:JHHC:10374 ) 6 the other Issues by this Authority is beyond its jurisdiction, accordingly the instant reference is dismissed.” 8. However, merely because the learned Trial Court was not empowered to entertain reference in connection with the property involved in this case under the New Act of 2013, the right of the appellant to get the remaining 20% of the awarded amount and also to get the matter referred in terms of the Act of 1894 before the competent Authority under the said Act of 1894 has not been lost if such an application for reference was filed under the Act of 1894 and has remained pending before the competent authority. 9. This court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court ought to have kept the right of the appellant to take appropriate steps in terms of the Act of 1894 under which the land of the appellant was acquired and appropriate application was said to have been filed seeking reference under the Act of 1894 and/or the remaining amount of compensation remained unpaid, so that the grievance of the appellant with regard to compensation could be taken to a logical end. 10. Consequently, without interfering with the impugned judgement that the reference under the aforesaid Act of 2013 was not maintainable, the impugned judgement and decree is modified to the extent that it will be opened to the appellant to proceed and take appropriate steps in terms of the Act of 1894 with regards to his claim/ grievance relating to balance compensation of the acquired land involved in this case and/or appropriate application seeking reference under the Act of 1894 which was filed earlier and has remained pending before the appropriate authority . 11. 11. This appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any is dismissed as not pressed. 13. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit