LexSMT. KANAK AND ANR. versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SMT. KANAK AND ANR. v. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS. SEPTEMBER I, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] UP. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959-Section 381-Housing Scheme framed by Agra Nagar Palika-Respondent-Parishad formed in 1965 to which the execution of the scheme was transferred-Application for C reference made by claimants due to dissatisfaction as regards quantum of compensation but the respondent-Parishad was not made party-No reference made for eight years and in the meanwhile several deeds were executed assigning compensation rights to the appellants-Value of compensation was enhanced on reference and the respondent-Parishad filed an appeal before the High Court without the required pre-deposit, D fitness certificate and also being time barred-Writ petition was also filed against the same impugned award-Appeal was dismissed but the writ petition was allowed and both parties filed appeals against the judgments- Held, merely execution of the scheme was transferred, therefore, procedures contained in Mahapalika Adhiniyam were to be followed-No application E for fitness certificate was possible as respondent was not made a party in the Tribunal and the appeal was net maintainable the condition of pre- deposit did not arise-Writ petition was maintainable as there was no locus to file appeal-Parallel remedies not allowed to continue simultaneously but as appeal was not maintainable writ petition could be maintained- F Respondent-Parishad had been seriously prejudiced by non-service of notice as regards proceedings before the collector and reference court-Hence writ petition maintainable-Matter be remanded back to reference court where respondent-Parishad shall be impleaded as a party and all parties shall be allowed to adduce their respective evidence. G Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965-land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, I 984 applicable and all claimants entitled to the benefits in terms of the amendments. The respondent-Parishad was formed under the Uttar Pradesh H Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. Agra Nagar Mahapalika n., KANAK v. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD 233 framed a housing scheme under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, A 1959 by issuing a notification dated 23.4.1960. Later on, after formation of the Parishad an agreement was entered into between it and the Agra Nagar Palika as regards transfer of execution of the said scheme. The possession of land was taken on or about 18.6.1971, which was valued at the rate of Rs. 1.34 per square yard. However, only a part of the B determined sum was paid to the owners of the land and the rest was withheld due to dispute in titles. An application for reference was moved before the Collector as the owners of the land were dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation. Several registered deeds of sale were executed by the owners C assigning their compensation rights as no reference was made for a period of eight years. The appellants are those assignees. The Tribunal constituted for adjudicating on the reference assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 12 per square yard in relation to some other lands. Later on a similar award was passed in respect of the land in question D on 24.5.1993 along with other statutory benefits and damages. The respondent-Parishad, which was not a party in the reference court, preferred an appeal in the High Court against the award, which was barred by limitation, under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. The appeal was filed without the pre-deposit and the required E fitness certificate. The appeal was admitted and during its pendency the respondent-Parishad filed a writ petition challenging the award contending that the condition of pre-deposit was onerous. The High Court by a composite judgment dismissed the appeal as conditions under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam were not complied with but held that the writ petition was maintainable and reduced the F determined market value, denied statutory and consequential benefits, disallowed claim of solatium and rejected the damages awarded. The respondent-Parishad filed an appeal against dismissal of their first appeal in the High Court and the appellants filed this appeal against the judgment in the writ petition. G The appellants contended that as Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam provided a statutory remedy, the writ petition was not main
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.