SAVITRI CAIRAE versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 01-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
SA VITRI CAI RAE 
A 
v. 
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR. 
MAY I, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.l 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965-Sections· 
3, 29, 32 and 55-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23{1-A)-Land 
acquisition under the Adhiniyam-Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to the C 
Acquisition made under the Adhiniyam-Held, applicable-By reason of legal 
fiction created under the Adhiniyam, Parishad is deemed to be a local 
authority-In its capacity as a local authority under the Act, Parishad invokes 
the provisions of the Act-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14. 
Lands were acquired under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad D 
Adhiniyam, 1965. The special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award. 
Claimants not satisfied with the compensation sought reference. The 
reference court enhanced the compensation and also granted solatium at 
the rate of 15%, interest at the rate of 9% and ad~itional amount under 
Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Parishad preferred 
appeals against the order of reference court. High Court, partly allowing E 
the appeals, granted solatium at the rate of 30% instead of 15% and also 
interest at the rate of 15% for one year and 9% for subsequent years. Hence 
the present appeals by the Parishad and the claimants. 
Parishad contended that the grant of compensation to the claimants F 
under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was erroneous in view of the 
fact that the Adhiniyam was enacted by the State Legislature whereas the 
Land Acquisition Act was enacted by the Parliament; that the provisions 
of the Adhiniyam could not have been held to be ultra vires Article 14 of 
the Constitution of India; that having regard to the fact that clause (5) of 
the Schedule appended to the Adhiniyam specifically referred to the G 
quantum ofsolatium payable by the State, enhancement thereof by invoking 
the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be held to be justified; 
that the doctrine of incorporation by reference in a case of this nature 
would not lead to the conclusion that as and when any amendment is made 
in the Parliamentary Act, the State legislation would stand automatically H 
1081 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A amended, in view of the phraseology used in Section 55 Of the Adhiniyam; 
and that High Court had committed a clerical mistake in not awarding 
additional compensation. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. It is true that ordinarily equality clause enshrined in Article 
14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in the matter of 
enforcement of a State Legislation vis-a-vis a Parliamentary Legislation 
and/or the Legislation of another State. In the presj!nt case, Uttar Pradesh 
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 provides for acquisition of 
C land in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By reason of legal fiction 
created under the Adhiniyam, the Parishad is deemed to be a local 
authority. The Parishad invokes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 in its capacity as a local authority under the Act. The State issued a 
notification in terms of Section 29 of the Adhiniyam and made declaration 
in terms of Section 32 which are on similar terms as contained in Sections 
D 4 and 6 of the Act respectively. The purpose for acquisition of land both 
under the Parliamentary Act and the State Act is the same. 
E 
11085-H; 1086-C, D, El 
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao and Ors., 1197313SCR39, 
followed. 
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Paris had v. Jainul Islam and Anr., 11998] 2 SCC 
467 and Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasant Rao and Ors., 120031 7 SCC 
657, relied on. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, AIR 119541SC493; 
F The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Ananthi Amma.f and Ors., JT (1985) I 
SC 247 and Prakash Amichand Shah v. Stale of Gujarat and Ors., (19851 
Suppl. 3 SCR 1925, distinguished. 
2. Once High Court had held that the Amending Act of 1984 was 
applicable for the grant of compensation, it appears that some clerical error 
G crept into the judgment of the High Court in not awarding additional 
compensation. The claimants are also entitled to the additional 
compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Aequisition Act. Further, 
the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the. 
first year and 15 percent for the subsequent years,, 11091-D, El 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal

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