Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Udai Ram & ANR  ICSD 303 (17 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
2411,2412,2410,2413-15 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 1997 [Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos.24786,24787,24784,25148/96, SLP(C) Nos.7204/97 (CC-2797) and SLP (C)
No.7205/97 (CC- 2889)] O R D E R CA Nos. 2409,2411-12,2410,2413/97:
(C) Nos. 24783,24786,24787,24784&25148/96] Delay condoned. Leave
have heard the counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from
the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on May 2,
1996 in F.A. No. 757/86 and batch.
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
respondents claimed a 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. The ppellant-Parishad claimed that the Amendment Act is not
applicable since the proceedings were initiated under the U.P Avas Exam 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
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
. Though there is a difference of opinion in Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v.
state of U.P [C.A.No.15399/96], decided on December 26, 1996, with regard to the determination
of compensation. 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 Parishad v. Hakim Singh & Anr. [C.A No.15493/96,
dated December 6, 1996].
counsel for the respondents sought to contend that there was a reference
against the difference of opinion as to the applicability of the Amendment Act
either by in corporation or by reference to a three Judge Bench. In view of the
fact that subsequent judgments have accepted 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 Trust & Anr. V. Vithal Rao [(1973) 1 SCC
500] that payment of compensation under Adhiniyam different from the Act is violative
of Article 14. The ratio there in has no application to the fact-situation in
these cases. That was a case where the vires of the Act itself was challenged
under Article 226. In this case that question has not arisen because these
appeals arose under reference under section 18 of the Act.
appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court to the extent of
application of the Amendment Act 68 f 1984 stand set aside. Solatium shall be
paid @ 15% on the enhanced compensation, interest at 6% under the Schedule and
clause 15 of the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. The appellant is directed to pay
the amounts within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. No
2414-2415 /97 @ SLP(C) Nos. 7204-05/97 [CC Nos. 2797 and 2889/97] Delay
the above judgment, these appeals are dismissed . No costs.