/2022 INSC 0904/
  1  
REPORTABLE 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6778 ­ 6780 OF 2022
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors.     ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.    …Respondent(s)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6781 ­ 6783 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   dated   06.10.2021   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir   and   Ladakh,   at
Jammu   in   respective   writ   petitions   preferred   by   the   private
respondents   herein   –   original   petitioners   whereby   the
appellants   herein   –   original   respondents   have   been   directed
to   determine   the   compensation   of   the   acquired   lands   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Right   to   Fair
Compensation   and   Transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,
Rehabilitation   and   Resettlement   Act,   2013   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   “the   Act,   2013”),   the   appellants   herein   –

  2  
original respondents have preferred present appeals. 
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nut­shell are as
under:
2.1 That,   the   lands   in   question   were   sought   to   be   acquired
under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “State   Act   of   1990”).   The
notification   under   Section   4   of   the   State   Act   of   1990   was
issued on 15.11.2016. The lands in question were sought to
be  acquired   for   the   appellants   –   beneficiary.   That  thereafter
declaration   under   Section   6   of   the   State   Act   of   1990   was
issued on 12.11.2018. The land owners – original petitioners
filed   the   respective   petitions   before   the   High   Court
challenging   the   proceedings   initiated   under   the   J&K   Land
Acquisition Act SVT 1990 with the following prayers: ­ 
A. CERTIORARI; so as to quash the proceedings initiated
by respondents u/s 4,6,9 & 9­A and Section 17 of J &
K Land Acquisition Act, SVT 1990 for the acquisition of
land   for   relocation   of   petroleum   Depots   from   Channi
Himmat   near   Railway   Station   to   Villages   Pargalta   and
Khana Chargal, Tehsil and District Jammu. 
B. MANDAMUS;   so   as   to   command   and   direct   the

  3  
respondents   to   de­notify   the   land   sought   to   be
acquired   in   villages   Pargalta   and   Kanna   Chargal,
Tehsil and District Jammu for re­location of Petroleum
Depots. 
C. PROHIBITION;   so   as   to   restrain   the   respondents   from
taking   the   possession   of   land   falling   under   various
Khasra   numbers   of   aforesaid   villages   u/s   17   of   J&K
Land Acquisition Act. 
2.2 That,   during   the   pendency   of   the   writ   petitions   before   the
High Court, the State Act of 1990 came to be repealed. When
the   aforesaid   writ   petitions   came   up   for   hearing   before   the
High  Court,  the  learned  Counsel  appearing   on  behalf  of  the
original writ petitioners submitted that the petitioners would
be   satisfied,   if   instead   of   quashing   the   land   acquisition
proceeding,   determination   of   compensation   is   made   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   24   of   the   Act,
2013.
2.3 It   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners
before   the   High   Court   that   as   neither   the   possession   of   the
lands   in   question   have   been   taken   over   nor   the   award   has
been declared even under the State Act of 1990, the original

  4  
writ petitioners shall be entitled to compensation of acquired
land in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(1) of the
Act, 2013.
2.4 The   aforesaid   prayer   was   opposed   by   the   appellants   on   the
ground   that   as   the   acquisition   proceedings   have   been
initiated   under   the   State   Act   of   1990,   Section   24(1)   of   the
Act, 2013 shall not be applicable at all. It was submitted on
behalf   of   the   appellants   that   in   view   of   Section   6   of   the
General   Clauses   Act,   1897   read   with   sub­clause   (13)   of
Clause 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal
of   Difficulties)   Order,   2019   issued   vide   S.O.   No.3912(E)   of
2019   dated   30.10.2019   of   the   Ministry   of   Home   Affairs
(Department of J & K Affairs)   the repeal of the Act shall not
affect the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired,
accrued or incurred under any law so repealed and that any
investigation,   legal   proceeding   or   remedy   may   be  instituted,
continued   and   enforced   as   if   Jammu   &   Kashmir
Reorganization Act, 2019 has not been passed. Therefore, it
was   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   award   in
respect   of   the   acquisition   in   question   has   to   be   made   in
accordance with the provisions of the State Act of 1990 and
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 would not be applicable.

  5  
2.5 By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petitions   and   has
directed   the   appellants   –   original   respondents   to   determine
the   compensation   of   the   acquired   lands   in   accordance   with
the provisions of the Act, 2013.
2.6 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common
judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court directing   the
appellants   to   determine   and   pay   the   compensation   of   the
acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act,
2013,   the   original   respondents   –   appellants   herein,   for
whose   benefit  the   lands   have   been   acquired,   have   preferred
the present appeals.
3. Shri   Tushar   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor   General   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellants   has   vehemently   submitted   that   in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has
erred   in   directing   the   appellants   to   determine   and   pay   the
compensation under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act,
2013.
3.1 It   is   further   submitted   that   in   view   of   Clause   2(13)   of   the
Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act,

  6  
the   rights,   liabilities,   and   obligations   acquired,   accrued   or
incurred under the Repeal Law vis. State Act of 1990 stands
saved and would continue under the said Act.
3.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor
General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even
otherwise   considering   Section   24(1)   of   the   Act,   2013,   with
respect   to   the   acquisition   under   the   State   Act  of   1990,   Act,
2013   shall   not   be   applicable   at   all.   It   is   submitted   that
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable only in a case
where   the   acquisition   under   the   provisions   of   Land
Acquisition   Act,   1894   have   been   initiated.   Heavy   reliance   is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of  Bangalore
Development   Authority   &   Anr.   vs.   The   State   of
Karnataka   &   Ors.   rendered   in   M.A.   No.1614­1616   of   2019
in   M.A.   No.1346­1348   of   2019   in   Civil   Appeal   Nos.7661­
7663 of 2018.
3.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Mehta,   learned   Solicitor
General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   that   even
otherwise   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   holding   that   as   the
award   was   not   declared   and   the   possession   was   not   taken
over, Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.

  7  
3.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   failed   to
appreciate that the award could not be passed on account of
stay   order   granted   by   the   High   Court.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore   non­passing   of   the   award   which   was   due   to   the
stay granted by the High Court cannot be a ground to apply
Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the
present appeals. 
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by learned Counsel
Sunil   Fernandes   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondents
herein – original writ petitioners.
4.1 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   as   neither   the
possession of the lands in question have been taken over nor
the   compensation   has   been   paid   as   the   award   was   not
declared, no error has been committed by the High Court in
directing to pay the compensation under the Act, 2013.
4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioners that in the present case
neither   Clause   2(13)   of   the   Jammu   &   Kashmir

  8  
Reorganization   (Removal   of   Difficulties)   Order,   2019   nor
section   6   of   the   General   Clauses   Act,   1897   shall   be
applicable.
4.3 It is submitted that reliance placed by the appellants on the
decision of this Court in the case of   Bangalore Development
Authority   &   Anr.   (Supra)   is   wholly   misconceived,   as   the
same   shall   not   apply   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case.   It   is
submitted   that   in   the   said   judgment   it   was   held   that   the
repeal   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   would   not   affect   /
lapse   the   land   acquisition   proceedings   initiated   under   the
Bangalore   Development   Act,   1976,   inasmuch   as   the
provisions of the former Act had been ‘incorporated’ into the
latter   Act   and   therefore,   had   independent   existence.   It   is
submitted   that   in   the   said   decision   the   view   taken   by   this
Court   was   on   the   premise   that   since   the   governing   statute,
i.e.,   the   Bangalore   Development   Act,   1976   had   not   been
repealed,   there   was   no   occasion   of   applicability   of   the   Act,
2013.   It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   J   &   K   Act
which   was   pari   materia   to   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894
stands   repealed   and   Act,   2013   has   come   into   force   with
respect   to   the   J   &   K   with   effect   from   31.10.2019   on
enactment   of   the   Jammu   &   Kashmir   Reorganization   Act,

  9  
2019.
4.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   in   view   of   the   plain   language
implied   in   Section   24   of   the   Act,   2013   i.e.,   if   at   the   time   of
commencement   of   the   Act,   2013,   no   award   has   been   made
under   the   old   Act,   then   all   provisions   under   the   new   Act
(Act,   2013)   relating   to   determination   of   compensation   shall
apply.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   intention   of   the
legislature to ensure that the proceedings under the old Act
did not lapse merely due to the coming into force of the new
Act.   However,   at   the   same   time,   the   intention   is   to   give
benefit of the  liberal  provisions  of  the Act,  2013  to  the  land
owners as well. It is submitted that therefore the High Court
has rightly held that in case an award has been made under
the J&K Act before its repeal, then the right of compensation
of the land owners would certainly have been determined in
accordance   with   the   J   &   K   Act   only.   However,   where   no
award has been passed under the J & K Act before its repeal
and   consequently   no   right   to   compensation   had   been
matured,   neither   clause   2(13)   of   the   Jammu   and   Kashmir
Reorganization   (Removal   of   Difficulties)   Order,   2019   nor
Section   6   of   the   General   Clauses   Act   shall   be   employed   to
nullify   the   express   provision   contained   in   Section   24(1)   of

  10  
the   Act,   2013   insofar   as   it   provides   that   where   no   award   is
passed   under   the   old   /   repealed   Act,   the   provisions   of
enhanced   compensation   under   the   Act,   2013   would   apply
while   not   affecting   the   land   acquisition   proceedings   under
the old / repealed law as such.
4.5 Now,   so   far   as   non­passing   of   the   award   on   account   of   the
stay   order   dated   14.12.2018   is   concerned,   it   is   submitted
that as  such  the  order  dated  14.12.2018 was only  directing
the   parties   to   maintain   status   quo   with   regard   to   the
possession   and   the   High   Court   did   not   pass   any   interim
order restraining the authorities from declaring the award. It
is  submitted  that  even  the   order  of  status  quo  was   in   some
of the  writ petitions and  did not extend to  other  lands. It is
submitted that despite the same, no award was passed.
4.6 In   the   alternative   it   is   submitted   by   the   learned   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   that
before the High Court the land acquisition proceedings were
challenged   on   number   of   grounds   and   to   pay   the   enhanced
amount   of   compensation   under   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the   Act,
2013 was an alternative prayer due to non­declaration of the
award   under   Section   11   of   the   State   Act   of   1990.   It   is

  11  
submitted that in view of the alternative relief prayed for by
the   original   writ   petitioners,   the   High   Court   did   not   go   into
the merits of the submissions of the original writ petitioners
with respect to quashing of the land acquisition proceedings
and   therefore,   to   that   extent   the   issue   is   yet   to   be
considered. It is submitted that in case this Court takes the
view   that   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   2013   shall   not   be
applicable and that the original land owners are not entitled
to enhanced compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act,
2013,   in   that   case,   the   matters   may   be   remanded   to   the
High Court to decide the writ petitions on other grounds.
5. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Shri   Sunil
Fernandes,   learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents herein – original writ petitioners.
5.1 Having   gone   through   the   impugned   common   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court, the High Court has directed
the   appellants   herein   to   determine   and   pay   to   the   original
owners the compensation under the Act, 2013 on the ground
that   no   award   under   the   State   Act   of   1990   has   been
published   and/or   declared.   While   passing   the   impugned

  12  
common   judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has   relied
upon Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Section 24(1)(a) of the
Act, 2013 reads as under: 
“ 24. Land   acquisition   process   under   Act   No.1   of
1894   shall   be   deemed   to   have   lapsed   in   certain
cases.­ (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this   Act,   in   any   case   of   land   acquisition
proceedings   initiated   under   the   Land   Acquisition
Act, 1894,­
(a) where   no   award   under   section   11   of   the
said   Land   Acquisition   Act   has   been   made,   then,
all   provisions   of   this   Act   relating   to   the
determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has
been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition
Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.”
On   fair   reading   of   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the   Act,   2013,   it
provides   that   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   Act,
2013,   in   any   case   of   land   acquisition   proceedings   initiated
under   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894,   where   no   award
under Section  11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been
made,   then,   all   provisions   of   Act,   2013   relating   to   the
determination of the compensation shall apply. Section 24(1)

  13  
of   the   Act,   2013   speaks   about   the   land   acquisition
proceedings   initiated   under   the  Land   Acquisition   Act,  1894.
In   the   present   case,   the   lands   in   question   have   been
acquired  under  the provisions  of  the State Land  Acquisition
Act, 1990. Therefore, the acquisition of the lands in question
is   not   under   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894.   It   cannot   be
disputed   that   prior   to   the   enactment   of   the   Jammu   &
Kashmir   Reorganization   Act,   2019   and   promulgation   of   the
Jammu & Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far
as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned. It is only on
the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act,
2019,   Act,   2013   shall   be   made   applicable.   It   is   the   case   on
behalf of the original writ petitioners that as the provisions of
the   State   Act   of   1990   are   pari   materia   to   the   Land
Acquisition   Act,   1894   and   therefore,   Section   24(1)(a)   of   the
Act,   2013   shall   be   applicable.   The   aforesaid   cannot   be
accepted. The language of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is
very   clear   and   unambiguous.   It   talks   about   the   land
acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894   only   and   it   does   not   speak   about   any   other   pari
materia  provision of different statutes. 

  14  
5.2 At   this   stage   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. (Supra)   is required
to   be   referred   to.   In   the   said   decision   it   is   specifically
observed and held that the Act, 2013 repeals only the Land
Acquisition   Act,   1894   and   not   any   other   Central   or   State
enactment   dealing   with   the   acquisition   and   therefore,   what
is   sought   to   be   saved   under   the   Act,   2013   is   only
acquisitions   which   have   been   initiated   under   the   Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitions which have
been   initiated   under   any   other   Central   or   State   enactment.
In paragraphs 19 and 23, this Court had observed and held
as under:
“ 19. The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act and
not   any   other   Central   or   State   enactment   dealing
with   acquisition.   Therefore,   what   is   sought   to   be
saved   under   Section   24   of   the   2013   Act   is   only
acquisitions which had been initiated under the LA
Act   and   13   not   those   acquisitions   which   had   been
initiated   under   any   other   Central   or   State
enactment.   The   expression   contained   in   Section   24
of   the   LA   Act   cannot   be   given   extensive
interpretation   by   adding   words   into   the   provision,
in   the   absence   of   the   provision   itself   giving   rise   to
any such implication. We are of the view that 2013

  15  
Act   would   not   regulate   the   acquisition   proceedings
made under the BDA Act.
23. In view of the above, the Learned Judge of
the High Court in Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra) was
not justified in holding that the provisions of LA Act
that are made applicable to the BDA Act are in the
nature   of   legislation   by   reference.   The   learned
Judge has also erred in holding that in view of the
repeal   of   LA   Act   by   coming   into   force   of   2013   Act,
the   corresponding   provisions   of   2013   Act   would
regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act
and   that   this   would   include   determination   of
compensation   in   accordance   with   2013   Act.   It   is
hereby   clarified   that   since   LA   Act   has   been
incorporated   into   the   BDA   Act   so   far   as   they   are
applicable,   the   provisions   of   15   2013   Act   are   not
applicable for the acquisitions made under the BDA
Act.   Therefore,   the   judgment   of   the   learned   Single
Judge   of   the   High   Court   in   Sri   Sudhakar   Hegde
(supra)   and   other   connected   matters   is   hereby
overruled.”
In view of the above binding decision of this Court, we
are of the firm view that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall
not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J
& K Act, 1990.

  16  
5.3 Even   otherwise   considering   clause   2(13)   of   the   Order,   2019
read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under which
the   rights,   liabilities,   privileges,   obligations   acquired,
accrued,   or   incurred   under   the   repealed   laws   stands   saved
and   would   be   continued   under   those   Acts   (in   the   present
case   the   Act,   1990),   it   is   to   be   noted   that   Order,   2019   is
subsequent to the Act, 2013. Therefore, it is to be presumed
that   while   enacting   the   Order,   2019   and   providing   Clause
2(13) of the Order, 2019, the legislature was conscious of the
provisions   of   the   earlier   Act   (Act,   2013).   Under   the
circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquired under
the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall
not be applicable at all.
5.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in some of the
writ petitions  there  was  an  order   of   status   quo   may  be with
respect   to   the   possession.   It   is   to   be   noted   that   the
notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6
of   the   State   Act   of   1990   was   a   common   notification   /
declaration. Therefore, there  was  impediment on the  part of
the   authority   in   declaring   the   award.   The   original   writ
petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefit of the order of
status   quo   obtained   by   some   of   the   original   writ   petitioners

  17  
and   thereafter   to   contend   that   as   the   award   has   not   been
declared   they   shall   be   entitled   to   the   enhanced   amount   of
compensation   under   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   2013.   In   the
case   of   Indore   Development   Authority   Vs.   Manoharlal
and Ors.; (2020) 8 SCC 129 ,   it is observed and held by this
Court that: ­    
(i) Lapse   of   acquisition   takes   place   only   in   case   of   default   by
the authorities acquiring the land, not caused by any other
reason or order of the court;
(ii) If   it   was   not   possible   for   the   acquiring   authorities,   for   any
reason not attributable to them or the Government, to take
requisite steps, the period has to be excluded;
(iii) In   case   the   authorities   are   prevented   by   the   court's   order,
obviously,   as   per   the   interpretation   of   the   provisions   such
period has to be excluded;
(iv) The   intent   of   the   Act,   2013   is   not   to   benefit   landowners
only. The provisions of Section 24 by itself do not intend to
confer   benefits   on   litigating   parties   as   such,   while   as   per
Section   114   of   the   Act,   2013   and   Section   6   of   the   General
Clauses   Act   the   case   has   to   be   litigated   as   per   the
provisions of the Act, 1894;
(v) It   is   not   the   intendment   of   the   Act,   2013   that   those   who
have assailed the acquisition process should get benefits of
higher compensation as contemplated under Section 24;
(vi) It   is   not   intended   by   the   provisions   that   in   case,   the
persons,   who   have   litigated   and   have   obtained   interim
orders from the Civil Courts by filing suits or from the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should have the
benefits   of   the   provisions   of   the   Act,   2013   except   to   the
extent specifically provided under the Act, 2013;
(vii) In   cases   where   some   landowners   have   chosen   to   take
recourse   to   litigation   and   have   obtained   interim   orders
restraining taking of possession or orders of status quo, as
a   matter   of   practical   reality   it   is   not   possible   for   the

  18  
authorities   or   the   Government   to   take   possession   or   to
make   payment   of   compensation   to   the   landowners.   In
several   instances,   such   interim   orders   also   have   impeded
the making of an award;
(viii) The litigation initiated by the landowners has to be decided
on   its   own   merits   and   the   benefits   of   Section   24(2)   should
not be available to the litigants in a straightjacket manner.
In case there is  no  interim  order,  they   can  get  the benefits
they   are   entitled   to,   not   otherwise.   Delays   and   dilatory
tactics   and   sometimes   wholly   frivolous   pleas   cannot   result
in   benefitting   the   landowners   under   sub­section   (1)   of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013;
(ix) Any type of order passed by this Court would inhibit action
on   the   part   of   the   authorities   to   proceed   further,   when   a
challenge to acquisition is pending;
(x) Interim   order   of   stay   granted   in   one   of   the   matters   of   the
landowners   would   cause   a   complete   restraint   on   the
authorities to proceed further to issue declaration;
(xi) When   the   authorities   are   disabled   from   performing   duties
due   to   impossibility,   it   would   be   a   sufficient   excuse   for
them to save them from rigour of provisions of Section 24. A
litigant may have a good or a bad cause, be right or wrong.
But he cannot be permitted to take advantage of a situation
created   by   him   by   way   of   an   interim   order   passed   in   his
favour   by   the   Court   at   his   instance.   Although   provision   of
Section 24 does not discriminate between landowners, who
are litigants or non­litigants and treat them differently with
respect to the same acquisition, it is necessary to view all of
them   from   the   stand   point   of   the   intention   of   the
Parliament.   Otherwise,   anomalous   results   may   occur   and
provisions may become discriminatory in itself;
(xii) The law does not expect the performance of the impossible;
(xiii) An act of the court shall prejudice no man;
(xiv) When there is a disability to perform a part of the law, such
a   charge   has   to   be   excused.   When   performance   of   the
formalities   prescribed   by   a   statute   is   rendered   impossible
by   circumstances   over   which   the   persons   concerned   have
no control, it has to be taken as a valid excuse;
(xv) The   Court   can   under   its   inherent   jurisdiction   ex   debito
justitiae   has a duty to mitigate the damage suffered by the

  19  
defendants by the act of the Court;
(xvi) No   person   can   suffer   from   the   act   of   Court   and   an   unfair
advantage of the interim order must be neutralised;
(xvii) No party can be permitted to take shelter under the cover of
Court’s   order   to   put   the   other   party   in   a   disadvantageous
position; 
(xviii) If   one   has   enjoyed   under   the   Court's   cover,   that   period
cannot   be   included   towards   inaction   of   the   authorities   to
take   requisite   steps   under   Section   24   as   the   State
authorities   would   have   acted   and   passed   an   award
determining compensation but for the Court's order.
Therefore   also,   the   original   writ   petitioners   –   land
owners   shall   not   be   entitled   to   enhanced   amount   of
compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 on the
ground   that   as   the   award   has   not   been   declared   they   shall
be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013. 
6. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above   and
our   specific   finding   that   with   respect   to   the   lands   acquired
under the  provisions of the J & K Act, 1990 Section 24(1)(a)
of  the   Act,  2013  shall   not  be  applicable  and   even   otherwise
as   observed   hereinabove   on   merits   also   as   the   award   could
not   be   declared   due   to   the   pendency   of   the   writ   petitions
before the High Court and the order of   status quo , the High
Court   has   committed   a   serious   error   in   directing   the
appellants   to   pay   the   amount   of   compensation   under   the

  20  
Act,   2013.   To   that   extent   the   impugned   common   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   unsustainable,   both
on facts as well as on law. 
6.1 However,   at   the   same   time,   as   it   is   reported   that   the
acquisition   proceedings   were   challenged   on   other   grounds
also and the prayer to pay the compensation under the Act,
2013 was an  alternative  prayer, which  has  been granted  by
the High Court and therefore, the High Court did not go into
the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the original
land   owners   with   respect   to   the   quashing   of   the   land
acquisition proceedings on other grounds, the matters are to
be   remanded   to   the   High   Court   to   decide   the   writ   petitions
afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits on the
other   grounds   if   any,   challenging   the   land   acquisition
proceedings under the State Act of 1990.
7. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   all
these   appeals   succeed.   The   impugned   common   judgment
and   order   dated   06.10.2021   passed   by   the   High   Court
allowing   the   writ   petitions   and   directing   the   appellants   to
pay to the original writ petitioners / original land owners the
compensation   as   per   the   Act,   2013   is   hereby   quashed   and

  21  
set   aside.   As   the   High   Court   has   not   decided   the   writ
petitions   on   merits   on   other   grounds   with   respect   to
quashing   of   the   land   acquisition   proceedings,   all   the   writ
petitions are  remitted back to  the High  Court  to decide  and
dispose   of   the   said   writ   petitions   afresh   in   accordance   with
law   and   on   its   own   merits   so   far   as   other   grounds   with
respect to the quashing of the land acquisition proceedings,
which   shall   be   dealt   with   by   the   High   Court   in   accordance
with   law   and   on   its   own   merits.   However,   the   issue   with
respect to the applicability of the Act, 2013 is concluded and
shall   not   be   reopened   by   the   High   Court   and   it   is   observed
and   clarified   that   the   High   Court   shall   consider   on   merits
other   submissions,   if   any   raised   in   the   writ   petitions,   with
respect to quashing of the land acquisition proceedings only.
Present   appeals   are   allowed   accordingly   to   the
aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs. 
………………………………… .J.
       [M.R. SHAH]
     
  ………………………………… .J.
       [KRISHNA MURARI]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 12, 2022