GAURI SHANKAR GAUR AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 667 · Decided: 12-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GAURI SHANKAR GAUR AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 12, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishdd Adhiniyam, 1963: 
Sections 23, 32 and 5~Schedule-Acquisition of land for Housing 
Scheme-Notifications for-Limitation of period prescribed under first C 
proviso to S.6(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Applicability of 
Land Acquisition Ac!, 1894: 
First provis'a to s.6(1)-Applicability to Acquisitions Proceedings under 
Sections 28 and 32 of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 245, 254(2)-Provi.,o-'-Seventh Schedule-State List-Entries 
5, 6 and 66 Concu"ent List:-Entry 42-Repugnancy between State Law and 
Central Law-Unless State Law is fully inconsistent and absolutely irrecon-
E 
cilable it would not be co"ect to co71clude that repugnancy renders the State 
Law void. 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Pailshad Adhiniyam, 1965 co-exist inde-
pendently without colliding with Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 55 and 
Schedule of the 1965 Adhiniyam held not void. 
F 
Doctrine of Occupied field-t.Applicability of Doctrine on Pith and 
Substance-Applicability of 
Articles 32 and 136. 
Special .Leave Petition-Grant of leave confined to one point-Writ 
Petition filed subsequent to grant of leave-Tagging of-Same point involved 
in writ and appeals-Additional points raised in Writ Petitions-Power an.1 
duty of Court to decide. 
Article 142 ( 1) 
667 
G 
H 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Supreme Court-Power to mould and restrict relief to parties. 
B 
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Legislative intent-Dury of Court to give effect to-No provision of 
statute should be rendered otiose. 
Statute-Legislation by Incorporation and Legislation by Refer-
enc~Distinction between and effect of 
Judicial Propriety and Comity: 
C 
Bench hearing Appeals-Duty to respect order of earlier Bench granting 
D 
leave. 
The U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad published Notilications in the 
Gazette on September 8, 15 and 22 of 1973 under section 28(1) of the Avi.s 
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 proposing to ac<1uire 14 Acres of Land 
for a housing schen1e. Notices inviting objections under section 29 were 
served on the appellants ou September 20, 1973 and the objections were 
filed on October 28, 1973. The Committee after hearing objections rejected 
the same and recommended to the Governn1ent to approve the scheme. 
The Government approved the scheme only to the extent of 11 acres 27 
E 
~ents and a Notification under section 32(1) was published in the Gazette 
on. August 27, 1977. Appeal preferred under section 32(2) before the 
Government was rejected. Thereafter the Housing Board issued Notices on 
: February 1, 1979 under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to take 
possession of the lands on expiry of 15 days thereafter. 
F 
The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings 
before the High Court. Against the decision of High Court Special Leave 
Petition was preferred to this Court and while granting leave this Court 
restricted the appeal to the question whether the Limitation period of three 
years prescribed under first Proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition 
G Act, 1894 would apply to Notilication under Sections 32(i) and 28 (i) of the 
U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. In the connected writ petitions 
and appeals which were filed subsequently similar question arose for 
consideration. 
For the appellants it was contended (i) that the 1965 Act adapted the 
H Land Ac<1uisition Act by reference and that, therefore, the first proviso to 
-
G.S.GAUR v.STATEOFU.P. 
669 
Section 6 as amended by Act 13 of 1967 gets attracted. J)eclaration under A 
Section 6 vis-a-vis notification under Section 32(1) not having been pub-
lished within three years from the date of the publication of the notification 
under Section 28(1) of the Act (Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act) 
the notifications under ss.28(1) and 32(1) became void ab initio and the 
authorities were devoid of jurisdiction to proceed further; (ii) Section 55 
of the 1965 Act and the Schedule must be so read as to apply Section 6 as 
amended· from time to time and shall be applicable to the proceedings 
taken under Sections 28 and 32 of the 1965 Act; and (iii) by operation of 
proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution, Section 55 and the Schedule 
of the 1965 Act became inconsistent with the first proviso to Section 6(1) 
B 
of the L

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.