http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SATYA PAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted,      We have learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special leave arises from the judgement and order  of the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of Allahabad made on November 1,1995 in W.P. No.30914/95.      The acquisition  is under  the  U.P.  Avas  Evam  Vikas Parishan Adhiniyam,  1965 .  The controversy  is whether the Land  Acquisition   act  68  of  1984  would  apply  to  the acquisition made  under the  Adhiniyam. In Gaurishankar Gaur vs. State  of U.P.[(1994) (1) SCC 921, a bench of two Judges of this court, to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. had held that this  Adhiniyam and  the procedure  prescribed  therein vis-a-vis the  Land Acquisition  Act, 1894   (1  of 1894) by incorporation and,  therefore, the  Amendment Act  does  not apply to  the acquisition  under the Adhiniyam. Hon’ble R.M. Sahai, J.  had  taken  a  different  view  on  that  matter. However, on  merit both  agreed for shifting of the date for payment of the compensation to the later date of declaration as under :      "Though for  different reasons,  we      have come  to the  same conclusions      that the  civil  appeals  and  writ      petitions  shall  stand  dismissed.      But the  appellants and petitioners      shall be  paid compensation  on the      market rate  prevalent in  the year      the   declaration    analogous   to      section 6  of the  Land Acquisition      Act, 1894  were issued.  In view of      the  special   facts  and  peculiar      circumstances and  nor as of Law we      have adapted this course."      Subsequently, the  question was  considered by  another Bench of this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Lucknow vs. Lata Awasthi [(1995) 3 SCC 573] wherein it was held that the Amendment  Act has  no application  since  some  of  the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894) were incorporated  into   the  Adhiniyam.   The  same   view  was reiterated in  Ramesh Chandra  Tiwari &  ors. vs.  U.P. Avas

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Evam Vikas Parishan, Lucknow [CA No.1832/86] decided January 8,1996 by  another   Bench. Under these circumstances, it is now settled  law that  the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of  1894,   has  no   application.  The  notification  under Adhiniyam similar  to section  4 and the declaration similar to Section  6 do  not stand  lapsed after  the expiry of two years from  the date  the Amendment Act has come into force. The High  Court, therefore,  was right  in refusing to grant the relief.      The Land  Acquisition Officer  is directed  to pass the award in  accordance with  law within  a period of six weeks from the  date of  the receipt  of this  order. If  the Land Acquisition Officer  does not  pass the  award  within  that period, he should award interest on the amount awarded @ 18% from the  date of  the expiry  of six weeks till the date of the  deposit   with  him   of  the   compensation   by   the requisitioning authority. In any event, if the amount is not deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer within a further period  of   three  months  thereafter,  there  shall  be  a direction to  the State  Government  to  withdraw  from  the acquisition.      The appeal is accordingly ordered. No costs.