LexNANDESHWAR PRASAD AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 425 the adjudication being professedly complete and d~ praemi8sis, that the claim in that respect was not upheld. 'I his would not render the a ward incomp- lete. We consider therefore that none of the three points urged in challenge of the validity of the award on the ground of its incompleteness has any sub- stance. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. --- NANDESHWAR PRASAD AND ANOTHER ti, THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Land Acqui•ition-Notification by Go11ernor-Land requi- re& for comtruction of indu•trial tenemtni.-&cond notification -Collector direclfll to take po.,ea1ion-Oollector' • notification •lating po,.eMion would be taken over-Acquiaition for Kanpur Development Board-Action if mwt be taken under 1. 114 of the Kanpur Act-Not;fication under •· 6 could be i,.ued without jirll wking action under •· 5A-Land acquisitiM Act, 1894( 1 of 189,), "· ,,5,5A, 6,9, 17(1), 17(4), Kanpur Urban Ar•a Dewe- lopment Act, 1945(Act VI of 1945), aa. 71,114. In these two appeals the same questions of law arise and the facts in C.A. No. 166 of 1962 arc similar to those in C.A. 167 of 1962 which arc stated below. The appellant in C.A. No. 167 of 1962 is the owner of certain lands situated in the city of Kanpur. The land is occupied by a Mill and godowns and no part of the land is waste land or arable land. In 1932 the U. P. Government sanctioned by a notification a Scheme (Scheme No. XX) of the Improvement Trust, Kanpur. This Trust has been replaced by the. Development Board, Kanpur, by reason of the Kanpur Urban Arca Development Act, 1945. Jiii - s .. 1. Sil• v,,; •• Dhir,.dr• N•th s,. AJJMll"' J. /96J 1969 . ~ Naniuhwar Prasai v Sta11 oj U. P. 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (11164) VOL. In 1955 the Housing Department of the Government of U.P, sponsored a scheme for building industrial tenements. Part of the scheme concerned the locality in which the land in tlispute is situated. In 1956 a notification was is•ued under 1. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Governor of U.P. to the effect that the plots in dispute were required for the con- struction of tenements under the subsidized industrial housing scheme of the U.P. Government as well as for general improve- ment and street scheme No. XX of the Board. This was fol- lowed by a notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act stating that the case being one of urgency the Governor was pleased under sub-ss. (1) and (I-A) of s. 17 of that Act to direct that the Collector of Kanpur;though no award under '· 11 had been given, might on the expiration of the notice mentioned •· 9(1) take possession of land mentioned in the schedule. Subsequently a notice under s. 9 was issued which stated that possession of the land will be taken within 15 days. The appe- llant thereupon filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court. Two main points were raised in the petition. Firstly, it was contcnd•d that as the acquisi- tion was for the purpose of Scheme No. XX of the Board action had to be taken in accordance with s. 114 of the Kanpur Act and the schedule thereto and as no action had been so taken the proceedings for acquisition were bad. In the second place, it was . urged that it was not open to the Governor to issue the notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act without first taking action under s.5A thereof. The High Court rejected both these contentions and in the result dlsmwed the writ petidon. The present appeal was filed with a certificate i11ued by the High Court. · In the appeal before this Court the same questions which were agitated before the High Court were raised. Held it is only when the Board proceeds to acquire land by virtue of its powers under s. 71 thats. 114 comes into play and the proceedings for acquisition have to ta\<e place under the Land Acquisition Act as modified by s. 114 read with the schedule. But where the acquisition is, as in the present caac, by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, for public purposes though that purpose may be the purpose of the Board, the Kanpur· Act has no application at all and the Government proceeds to acquire under the provisions of the Land Acquial- tion Act alone. From the scheme of the Act it is clear that comcnce with the provision• of 1,5-A ia nccOlsary before a not · dOll I a s.c.R SUPREME C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.