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

PETITIONER: U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UDAI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ANR. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                    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: [@ 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  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.      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  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 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 .  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].      Learned counsel  for the  respondents sought to contend

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

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.      The 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 costs. C.A Nos 2414-2415 /97 @ SLP(C) Nos. 7204-05/97 [CC Nos. 2797 and 2889/97]      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Following  the   above  judgment,   these  appeals  are dismissed . No costs.