Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UDAI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ANR. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
2411,2412,2410,2413-15
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 1997
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.24786,24787,24784,25148/96,
SLP(C) Nos.7204/97 (CC-2797) and SLP (C) No.7205/97 (CC-
2889)]
O R D E R
CA Nos. 2409,2411-12,2410,2413/97:
[@ SLP (C) Nos. 24783,24786,24787,24784&25148/96]
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. These appeals
by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on May 2, 1996 in
F.A. No. 757/86 and batch.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on May
9,1970. The land Acquisition Officer passed his award on
March 28,1980. The respondents claimed a reference under
section 18. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to
Rs.14/- per sq. yd. by his award and decree dated May
15,1985. The reference Court also applied the provisions of
Amendment Act. The ppellant-Parishad claimed that the
Amendment Act is not applicable since the proceedings were
initiated under the U.P Avas Exam Vikas Parishad Act under
which special procedure has been prescribed for
determination of compensation. The High Court has rejected
the contention and awarded the compensation at the rate of
Rs.28.35 per sq. yard. Thus these appeals, by special leave.
We need not go into the merits of the manner of
determination of the compensation. The question is of
applicability of the provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of
1984 . Though there is a difference of opinion in Gauri
Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. state of U.P [C.A.No.15399/96],
decided on December 26, 1996, with regard to the
determination of compensation. This Court has upheld the
same in U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Lata
Awasthi[(1995) 3 SCC 573] and in U.P Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad v. Hakim Singh & Anr. [C.A No.15493/96, dated
December 6, 1996].
Learned counsel for the respondents sought to contend
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that there was a reference against the difference of opinion
as to the applicability of the Amendment Act either by in
corporation or by reference to a three Judge Bench. In view
of the fact that subsequent judgments have accepted that the
Amendment Act is only by reference and not by incorporation,
the Amendment Act has no application. It is then contended,
relying upon the judgment in Nagpur improvement Trust & Anr.
V. Vithal Rao [(1973) 1 SCC 500] that payment of
compensation under Adhiniyam different from the Act is
violative of Article 14. The ratio there in has no
application to the fact-situation in these cases. That was a
case where the vires of the Act itself was challenged under
Article 226. In this case that question has not arisen
because these appeals arose under reference under section 18
of the Act.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the
High Court to the extent of application of the Amendment Act
68 f 1984 stand set aside. Solatium shall be paid @ 15% on
the enhanced compensation, interest at 6% under the Schedule
and clause 15 of the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. The
appellant is directed to pay the amounts within six months
from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs.
C.A Nos 2414-2415 /97
@ SLP(C) Nos. 7204-05/97 [CC Nos. 2797 and 2889/97]
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Following the above judgment, these appeals are
dismissed . No costs.