U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ETC. ETC. versus UDAI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1167 · Decided: 17-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
I 
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UDAI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
MARCH 17, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMYAND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Ss. 4 (1) and JS-Application of provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 
1984-Notification u/s 4(1) published on May 9, 197()-Land Acquisition C 
Officer passed award on March 28, 198o-Reference Coult mhanced com-
pensation by decree dated May 15, 1985 and also granted enhanced benefits 
as available under Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Parishad claiming that 
provisions of the Amendment Act were not applicable as the proceedings were 
initiated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act underwhich special D 
procedure has been prescribed for detennining compensation--High Coult 
rejected the contention and further enhanced the compensation--Held, since 
the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has 1w application, the orders of High Court 
to the extent of application of the Amendment Act stand set aside-Solatium 
shall be paid at the rate of 15% on the enhanced compensation, and interest 
at 6% under the schedule and Clause 15 of the Schedule of the U.P. 
E 
AcHJ.P. Avas Evan1 Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. 
Satya Pal & Ors. v. State of U.P., [1996) Suppl. 9 SCR 203; U.P. Avas 
Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Lata Awasthi, [1995) 3 SCC 573 and U.P. 
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Hakim Singh & Anr., [1997) Vol. 9 SCC 607, 
relied on. 
Nagpur Improvement Tmst & Anr. v. Vithal Rao, [1973) 1 SCC 500, 
held inapplicable. 
F 
Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors v. State of U.P., [1994) 1 SCC 92, cited. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2409 of 
1997 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.96 of the Allahabad _High 
Court in F.A. No. 757 of 1986. 
' H 
1167 
1168 
i 
SUPREME COURT/REPORTS 
[1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
P.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
Jitender Mohan Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
C4 Nos. 2409, 2411-12, 2410, 2413/97: 
(@ SLP (c) Nos. 24783, 24786, 24787, 24784 & 25148/96) 
Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. These appeals by special 
C 
leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court, made on May 2, 1996 in P.A. No. 757/86 and batch. 
Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(for short, the 'Act') was published on May 9, 1970. The Land Acquisition 
Officer passed his award on March 28, 1980. The respondents claimed a 
D reference under Section 18. The District Judge enhanced the compensation 
to Rs. 14/- per sq. yd. by his award and decree dated May 15, 1985. The 
reference Court also applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984 
and granted enhanced benefits under the Amendment Act. The Appellant-
Parishad claimed that the amendment Act is not applicable since the 
E 
F 
proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act 
under which special procedure has been prescribed for determination of 
compensation. The High Court has rejected the contention and awarded 
the compensation at the rate of Rs. 28.35 per sq. yard. Thus these appeals, 
by special leave. 
We need not go into the merits of the manner of determination of 
the compensation. The question is of applicability of the provisions of the 
Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Through there is a difference of opinion in 
Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of U.P., [1994) 1 SCC 92, subsequently 
this Court has considered the question in Satya Pal & Ors. v. State of U.P., 
[1996) Suppl. 9 SCR 203, with regard to the determination of compensa-
G 
tion. This Court has upheld the same in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 
Lucknow v. Lata Awasthi, (1995) 3 SCC 573 and in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas 
Paris/tad v. Hakim Singh & Anr., [1997] Vol. 9 SCC 607. 
Learned counsel for the respondents sought to contend. that there 
was a reference against the difference of opinion as to the applicability of 
H 
the Amendment Act either by incorporation or by reference to a three 
• 
-
U.P. AV AS EV AM VIKAS P ARISHAD ETC. v. UDAI RAM ETC. 
1169 
Judge Bench. In view of the fact that subsequent judgments have accepted A 
that the Amendment Act is only by reference and not by incorporation, the 
Amendment Act has no application. It is then contended, relying upon the 
judgment in Nagpur Improvement Trnst & Anr. v. Vzth.al Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 
500, that payment of compensation under Adhiniyam different from the 
Act is violative. of Article 14. The ratio t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.