Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- This appeal by certificate against the judgment, dated March 19, 1968, of the Allahabad High Court raises questions about the constitutionality of certain modifications made in the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 and the effect of the repeal of the U. P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 on the Mumfordganj Housing Scheme which had been notified under the repealed Act.

2. Under Section 42 of the U. P. Town Improvement Act (Act 8 of 1919), a scheme known as Mumfordganj Housing Scheme was published on behalf of the Improvement Trust, Allahabad in the U. P. Government Gazette dated June 17, 1944. Appellant s property known as Hanuman Bagh, bearing Municipal No. 25/13, Katra Road, Allahabad, was also included in the area covered by this scheme.

2A. On September 6, 1955, notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the Collector to the appellants. Even before the appellants had filed their claim and before the Collector could make his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, U. P. Town Improvement Trust Act (No. 8 of 1918) was repealed and replaced by U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (for short, the Adhiniyam) which came into force on February 1, 1960. As a result of this change in law, the Town Improvement Trust was superseded by the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, which took further steps for implementation of the scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam.

3. Appellants filed their claim to compensation before the Collector who gave his award on April 13, 1961. Possession of the disputed property was taken and delivered by the Collector to the Mahapalika on November 16, 1961.

4. Appellants did not accept the award, and on their application a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was made by the Collector to the Court on January 3, 1962. The Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 1500/- as security for costs. The time for depositing security was repeatedly extended and the appellants deposited the security in instalments. Subsequently, the Court returned the reference to the Collector and refunded the security, for the reason that the reference was addressed to the District Judge and not to the Tribunal. The Collector, again made the reference to the Tribunal, which, purporting to act under Section 372, Proviso, asked the appellants to deposit Rs. 900/- as security for costs.

5. During the pendency of the reference in the District Court, the appellants filed writ petition No. 4473 of 1964 under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of Sections 372, 376 and Schedule II of the Adhiniyam whereby Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been modified on the ground that those modifications were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They also assailed the validity of the scheme on the ground that it had not been completed within the time-limit specified in Section 365(4) of the Adhiniyam The writ petition was opposed by the State Government and the Mahapalika (Respondents 1 and 2 respectively).

6. The Division Bench of the High Court negatived all the contentions canvassed before it and dismissed the petition with costs. The Bench, however, granted a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court under article 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution. That is how this appeal has come before us.

7. Section 376 of the Adhiniyam provides:

"For the purpose of the acquisition of land for the Mahapalika under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - whether under this Chapter or any other Chapter of this Act-

(a) the said Act shall be subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to this Act;

(b) .....

8. The modifications of the Land Acquisition Act, the validity of which is in question are:

(i) The Proviso added (vide para 10 of Schedule II) to Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, namely:

"Provided that this sub-section