-
RAMESH CHANDRA TIWAR! AND ANR.
A
v.
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW AND ORS.
JANUARY 8, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894/U.P. Al-vas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam,
"J965: Ss. 6, 28, 32 & 55 rlw. para 2 of the Schedule/S.38-Acquisition initiated
under the Adhiniyam-Held S.6 of land Acquisition Act not
applicable-Procedure prescribed in Ss. 28 mul 32 as mod(fied by operation
C
qf S.55 rlw para 2 of the Schedule to the Act applicable-Also held land
acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 not applicable--Notification issued
under S.28 qf the Act and declaration made under S.38 of the Adhiniyam held
valid-Claimants entitled to compensation under S.32 of the Act.
Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 92 D
and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. lata Awasthi, [1995] 3 SCC
573 relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1823of1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.85 of the Allahabad High Court
E
in C.M.W.P. No. 9295 of 1984.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Attorney General, P.K. Bajaj and Ms. Rachna Gupta
for the appellants.
Renu George and P.K. Jain for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the Judgment
of this Court in Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1994] I
SCC 92 wherein this Court had held that the provision of Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 had no application to the acquisition initiated under U.P.
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and the procedure prescribed in
Sections 28 and 32, as modified by operation of Section 55 read with para 2 of
the Schedule would be applicable. Consequently, the Land Acquisition (Amend-
211
F
G
H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] I S.C.R.
A
ment) Act 68 of 1984 had no application. The above view was reiterated by this
Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Lala Awasthi, [1995] 3
SCC 573. Consequently, the notification issued under Section 28 and declara-
tion made under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam are valid in law. The procedure
prescribed under the Adhiniyam should prevail. The Amendment Act 68 of
B
1984 does not apply to the acquisition under the Adhiniyarn. However, in view
of the Judgment in Gauri Shankar's case (supra), the claimants would be
entitled to the compensation determined with reference to the date of declaration
under Section 32 of the Act for the reasons mentioned therein.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
G.N.
Appeal disposed of.
--
Lex