LexU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD versus JAINUL ISLAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PAR!SHAD v. JAINUL ISLAM AND ANR. JANUARY 21, 1998 B [S.C. AGRAWAL, B.N. KIRPAL AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] U.P. Avas Evem Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965-Section 55- Acquisition o_f land for executing housing sche1ne under the Adhini}·am- C Reference to land Acquisition Act, 1894 in section 55 of the Adhiniyam- Applicability of amendments introduced in the land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to determination and payment of compensation under Section 23 (I- A}, 23(2) and 28 as amended by 1894 Act-Held, legislature intended to apply amendments introduced to acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28. D Acquisition of land-Afarket Value-Determination-Direction about deduction of one third of price towards cost of development for housing scheme-Held, not illegal interference with the determination of market value uncalled for-land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23. E Interpretation of statutes-legislation by incorporation and by reference-Effect of-Jn case of legislation by incorporation, repeal or amendment does not effect operation of the incorporation ~tatute Determination of whether legislation is by incorporation or reference depends upon the language used in the incorporating statute. F Housing scheme was framed by the appellant under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evem Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The notification was issued to the acquired under section 55 of the Adhiniyam. The provisions of Land Acquisition Act ;is modified by the schedule to the Adhiniyam were made applicable to acquisition of land for the purpose of the G Adhiniyam. Therefore, amendments were introduced in the land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to determination and payment of compensation under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 as amended by 1984 Act. As a result of the amendments in Section 23(2) and 28 the solatium payable under Section • 23(2) has been enhanced from 15% to 30% and the interest payable under Section 28 has been enhanced from 6% to 9% and 15%. The land H Acquisition Officer determined the compensation to be paid to the respondent 254 ~I ./~ U.P. A VAS EVAM VJKAS PARISHAD v. JAINUL ISLAM 255 The respondent claiming higher compensation made reference under Section A 18 of the claims. The civil court determined the market value oft.he land at Rs. 150 per sq. yards but made a deduction of 10% out of it since the land acquired constituted a large area. Aggrieved by the order the appellant and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly filed appeals before the High Court. Some of the respondents-land owners challenged the deduction of 10% B out of the market value of the land. The High Court partly allowing the appeal assessed the market value of the land at Rs. llO per sq. yard and directed that deduction on account of the large area of the land should be one- third of the sum of Rs. 110. The High Court held that the amendments introduced in the Land Acquisition Act by the 1984 Act are applicable to C acquisition of land for the purposes of the Adhiniyam and the respondents are entitled to all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the 1984 Act. In this batch of civil appeals and Special Leave Petitions before this Court the appellate challenged the applicability of the provisions contained D in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to acquisition of land for executing the housing scheme framed by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. In the other batch of civil appeals and writ petitions the respondents challenged the validity of provisions contained in L.A. Act, 1894 as applicable in the matter of acquisition of Land. The appellant contended that the provisions of the L.A. Act, as modified by the Schedule to the Adhjniyam, have been incorporated into the Adhiniyam and as a consequence of such incorporation the provisions of the L.A. Act E as modified must be read as a part of the Adhiniyam itself and any amendment made in the L.A. Act after the enactment of the Adhiniyam would not, ipso F facto, apply so as to have the effect of modifying those provisions contained in the Adhiniyam and, therefore, the amendments introduced the L.A. Act by the 1984 Act would not apply to an acquisition made for the purposes of the Adhiniyam on the basis of the provisions of L.A. Act as modified by the Adhiniyam. The respondent submitted that the amendments introduced in the L.A. G • f-- Act by the 1984 Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.