RAMESH CHANDRA TIWARI AND ANR.versusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 32
- Decided
- 8 January 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 1984 Amendment Act do not apply to acquisitions under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, so the procedure of Sections 28 and 32 as modified by Section 55 and paragraph 2 of the Schedule governs, rendering the notification and declaration valid and entitling claimants to compensation under Section 32.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Ramesh Chandra Tiwar and another against the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad concerning land acquisition under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The key issue was whether Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 1984 Amendment Act applied to such acquisitions, or whether the procedure in Sections 28 and 32, as modified by Section 55 and paragraph 2 of the Schedule, governed the process. Relying on its earlier decisions in Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State of U.P. and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Lala Awasthi, the Court held that Section 6 and the Amendment Act were inapplicable, and the modified Sections 28 and 32 were the correct procedure. Consequently, the notification issued under Section 28 and the declaration under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam were deemed valid, and the claimants were entitled to compensation as determined under Section 32. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Does Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply to acquisitions initiated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965?
- Is the procedure prescribed in Sections 28 and 32, as modified by Section 55 and paragraph 2 of the Schedule, applicable to such acquisitions?
- Does the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 68 of 1984 apply to acquisitions under the Adhiniyam?
- Are the notification under Section 28 and the declaration under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam valid?
- Are claimants entitled to compensation determined under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 28, s. 32, s. 38, s. 55, s. 6
- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965s. 28, s. 32, s. 38, s. 6
Subjects
Judgment
RAMESH CHANDRA TIWAR! AND ANR. A
v.
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW AND ORS.
JANUARY 8, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAJK, JJ.] B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894/U.P. Al-vas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam,
"J965: Ss. 6, 28, 32 & 55 rlw. para 2 of the Schedule/S.38-Acquisition initiated
under the Adhiniyam-Held S.6 of land Acquisition Act not
applicable-Procedure prescribed in Ss. 28 mul 32 as mod(fied by operation C
qf S.55 rlw para 2 of the Schedule to the Act applicable-Also held land
acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 not applicable--Notification issued
under S.28 qf the Act and declaration made under S.38 of the Adhiniyam held
valid-Claimants entitled to compensation under S.32 of the Act.
Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 92 D
and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. lata Awasthi, [1995] 3 SCC
573 relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1823of1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.85 of the Allahabad High Court E
in C.M.W.P. No. 9295 of 1984.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Attorney General, P.K. Bajaj and Ms. Rachna Gupta
for the appellants.
Renu George and P.K. Jain for the Respondents. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the Judgment
G
-
of this Court in Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1994] I
SCC 92 wherein this Court had held that the provision of Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 had no application to the acquisition initiated under U.P.
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and the procedure prescribed in
Sections 28 and 32, as modified by operation of Section 55 read with para 2 of
the Schedule would be applicable. Consequently, the Land Acquisition (Amend- H
211
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] I S.C.R.
A ment) Act 68 of 1984 had no application. The above view was reiterated by this
Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Lala Awasthi, [1995] 3
SCC 573. Consequently, the notification issued under Section 28 and declara-
tion made under Section 38 of the Adhiniyam are valid in law. The procedure
prescribed under the Adhiniyam should prevail. The Amendment Act 68 of
1984 does not apply to the acquisition under the Adhiniyarn. However, in view
B
of the Judgment in Gauri Shankar's case (supra), the claimants would be
entitled to the compensation determined with reference to the date of declaration
under Section 32 of the Act for the reasons mentioned therein.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
G.N. Appeal disposed of.
--
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.