IMPORTANT POINT
Although acquisition is to be made in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam but the procedures laid down therefor under the Land Acquisition Act are to be followed and in both the cases, the acquiring authority is the State.

JUDGMENT

Khare, CJI.-On 5th March, 2003 when these appeals came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court, the Bench was of the view that these matters require to be heard and decided by a Bench of three Judges. It is in this way these appeals have come up for hearing before us.

2. Before us, there are two sets of civil appeals - one set of appeals is at the instance of the claimants whose land has been acquired and the same is directed against the order and judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court partly allowing the first appeals of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as "the Parishad") and the other set of appeals is at the instance of the Parishad.

3. The Uttar Pradesh Legislature has enacted Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam"). The Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short "the Parishad") was constituted under the Adhiniyam. One of the duties assigned to the Parishad under the Adhiniyam is to frame and carry out housing schemes by acquiring land. In that view of the matter, the Parishad issued a notification dated 2nd October, 1982 under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam proposing to acquire 136.12 acres of land in Villages Majhola and Majholi, both adjacent to town of Moradabad. The said notification under Section 29 was followed by a notification dated 5th May, 1984 issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam which corresponds to notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. On 22nd September, 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award in respect of the land acquired by the Parishad. The Land Acquisition Officer granted different rates of compensation in respect of the lands so acquired. The claimants were not satisfied with the compensation offered to them by the Collector and, therefore, they sought reference before the Reference Court. The Reference Court, by an order and judgment dated 18th April, 1990, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 55 per sq. metre to Rs. 130 per sq. metre and also granted solatium at the rate of 15 per cent, interest at the rate of 6 per cent and additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Simultaneously the Reference Court deducted 25 per cent of the compensation towards the development deductions. The Parishad aggrieved against the aforesaid order and judgment and preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court divided the entire acquired land into three categories by applying belting system. The High Court granted solatium at the rate of 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent as awarded by the Reference Court and also interest at the rate of 15 per cent for one year and 9 per cent for subsequent years. Consequently appeals were partly allowed.

4. We are first taken through the appeals preferred by the Parishad. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Parishad relied upon decisions of this Court in Prakash Amichand Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1985 (Suppl. 3) SCR 1025, The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Ananthi Ammal & Ors. JT 1995(1) SC 247 and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. G.C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 and submitted that the grant of compensation to the claimants under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was wholly erroneous in view of the fact that the Adhiniyam was enacted by the State Legislature whereas the Land Acquisition Act was enacted by the Parliament, the provisions of the Adhiniyam could not have been held to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the factual matrix involved the decisions of this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam and Another [(1998) 2 SCC 467] wherein this Court was not concerned with the construction of Section 55 of Adhiniyam read with the Schedule appended thereto vis-a-vis Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the matter requires reconsideration by this Court. The learned counsel also urged that having regard to the