OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 14-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER 
P. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
December 14, 1973 
731 
(D. G. PALEKAR, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S. SARKARIA, 11.] 
, U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adldn/v'am 1959, ss. 365(4), 372(1) and 511-
Modifications introduced in. ss. 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition A.ct-Validity 
of-Starting point of the S·year period mentioned in 1. 365(4). 
Under s. 42 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919, a bowing scheme~ 
which included the appellants' property, was published, and notice under s. 9 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the Collector to the appel .. 
!ants. The 1919-Act. having been repealed by the U.P. 
Nagar Mabapalika 
Adbiniyam, 1959, the Improvement Trust was supe,,.dod by the Mabapalika 
which took further stepe for the implementation ,of the scheme. The Collector 
gave his award, took possession. of the appellants' property and delivered It to 
the Mahaualika. The . aPJ)ellants did not accept the award 
and applied for 
a reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter waa refer-
red to the Tribunal under s. 372 of the Adhiniyani and the Tribunal, under 
the proviso to the section, asked the appellants to d~posit Rs. 900/- as security 
for costs. 
In a writ petition in the High Court, the appellants challenged the consti· 
tutionality of. certain provisions, whereby u. 18 and 23 of the Land· Acquisi-
tion Act were modified. 
The_ modifications were (a) the addition of a proviso 
to s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the effects of which is that the IS% 
solatium over the value assessed which is awarded when land is a~ 
by 
the Government under the tand Acquisition Act, will n.ot be &dm11&ible (f 
the land is acquired for the pqll'osc of a ,sebemc un'der the Adhiniyam; (b) 
the addition of a new clause 10 s. 23, the effect of which is that the potentJal 
value of the land, for example as a building site, is to be !snored: and (c) 
the prcviso to s. 312(1) of the Adhiniyam (corresponding to s. 18 of tho Land 
Accinisitlon Act) under which no claim shall be entertained by the Tribunal 
unless the claimant has dcpoaited in Court, a sum not exceedlna R1. 7,000/· u 
fixed by the Tribunal as security for coets. 
The High Court dismissed the petition, 
F 
Allowin11 the appeal to this Court, 
G 
H 
HELD : Whenever land I• compulsorily acquired for the Mahapallka-bo 
it for tho purpoae of achomo ·or for any other r,urpoa.-the aoqulrhl11 11.utborlly 
Is the Government. The fact that. where land a acquired for a Scll.01111 QQtdng 
less than Rs. 10 laea, the prior permi1Sion of the State ii not roqulrod makes 
no difference. The caption Of para 6 of Schedule n to tbo Adhlnlyam with its 
contents shows that the land has first to be acquired by the Collector for tho 
Government and thereafter it iS transferred to the · Mahapalika by the Oovem~ 
ment on payment of ·any further costs. 
Further, 1. 16 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, which is not modified by the Adhlniyam, provldas that where tho Colloc· 
tor mokes his award, he may take possession of the land which thereupon 
vests absolutelv in the Government. 
[73601 
But the Government can acquire land either under the unmodified Land 
Acquisition Act or as 01odilied by the Adhiniyam. In the first case, the land 
owner wotlld be entitled to better compensation, Including U% solatlum and 
tho potential value of the land: and there will be no lmpodlment to ap~roach· 
ing the Court under 1, 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. If he Is disaatllfied with 
tho Collector'• award. In the second case, the landowner would be under 
the disablll\les envlsaaed by the modiflcation1 lntroducld by tho Adhlnlyam. 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1974) 2 S.C.R, 
Therefore, the impugned provi.s_ions enable the Government to discriminate and 
A 
could not be justified as 1easonable classification under any of the well·known 
tests. 
f736Fl 
.1Vaf.'illr !111.ruO\'enient Trust and another v. Vithaf Rao and Ors., ll973]1 
s.c.c:_ son. followed. 
But the proviso added· to s. 23(2) was deleted by the U.P. Amendment 
Act 23 of 1961. 
Since the question· of compensation to the appellants is not 
past an1 closed, but pending before the Tribunal, the Tribunal will have to 
take cognizance of the repeal and, proceed as if the proviso never existed. 
The repeal is final and unconditional and there is nothing in the repealing Act 
which saves pending reference from its operation. The effect of the repeal is to 
remove the disability to receiving the 15% solat

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