Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH C.J.I., P.B. SAWANT, S.C. AGRAWAL, R.M. SAHAI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Appellant
Versus
Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 7067 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13858 of 1993) with C.A. Nos. 7068-70 and 7071 to 7075 of 1994, (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15810-12 of 1991, 391-93 of 1992; 15085 and 15057 of 1993)
Decided on 20-10-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P.S. Poti, Mr. G. Visavanatha Iyer, Mr. Hardev Singh, Sr. Advocates, Mr. V.B. Saharya, Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Mr. M.T. George, Mr. E.C. Agarwala, Mr. P.N. Gupta, Mr. T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Sushma Suri, Mrs. S. Bagga, Mr. M.K. Dua, Mr. N.D. Garg, Mr. R.B. Misra, Mr. Balmokand Goyal, Mr. R.C. Pathak, Mr. H.K. Puri, Mr. C.V. Subba Rao, Mr. P.N. Puri, Dr. Meera Aggarwal, Mr. S.N. Terdol, Mr. M.K. Garg, Mr. Manoj Swarup and Mr. K.K. Mohan. Advocates with them, for the appearing parties.
C. Misc. R.A. No. Nil of 1991 in F.A. No. 586 of 1985, D/-20-1-1993 (All)
In this case the Judges of the SC differ in their views. The Majority view is taken byM.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., P.B. Sawant, S.C. Agrawal and S.P. Bharucha, JJ. and the minority view by R.M. Sahai, J.
Amendment Act of 1984 - Section,11(1) - L.A. Act - Section, 55 - Fund or Company - Amount of compensation - Board framed scheme known as Trans Yamuna Housing and Accommodation Scheme and notice Act in respect of said scheme analogous to notification was published on January and notification Act analogous to declaration was published on August Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award on April wherein amount of compensation was fixed by adopting belting system - land under acquisition was divided in three belts and bypass road which lay in south was made basis for such belting - Compensation was awarded as for first second and third belts respectively – Held, But this is not end - Having laid down law and having come to conclusion was not necessary party nor it could have moved an application for recall of order passed by High Court not only due to long delay but even because it had no right in law to file such an application it is proposed to exercise power Article Constitution for sake of justice as other side of picture is disturbing - Claimant had claimed compensation at rate Yet Tribunal awarded as respondent appears to have moved an Amendment application claiming - Which was allowed - It is not clear at what stage amendment application was moved and allowed but assuming it to be so finding of High Court in this regard is worth extracting Therefore while determining market rate of land conjectures will have to be done - Taking into consideration factors such as nearness to buy pass nearness to inhabited area and superiority in fact in location and also keeping in view fact that Tribunal has awarded - Yard for further land lying in South of by-pass and rates fixed by Special Land Acquisition Officer for land falling in three different belts court are of view that rates for land for each of three belts as specified in his award should reasonably be fixed as below Not an iota of evidence has been discussed - No material has been noticed - No reason has been given for such enhancement - Determination of compensation undoubtedly involves guess work but what is meant by guess work and to what extent courts can indulge in such guess work has been laid down in numerous decisions of this Court - But finding extracted above to say least is not only arbitrary without basis but in utter disregard of statutory law and judicial expositions of it - It is not necessary to say further but finding and reasoning recorded by High Court is indeed matter of concern - It is accordingly set aside and High Court is requested to decide it afresh after hearing parties - It is necessary to clarify that Board shall not have right of being heard as it never appeared before Land Acquisition Officer or Tribunal nor filed any application for leading any evidence - Nor it claims any fraud or collusion - It is left open to High Court if it feels necessary in facts and circumstances of case to permit parties to lead any evidence to do justice – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
S. C. AGRAWAL, J. (For himself, for M. N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., P. B. Sawant and S. P. Bharucha, JJ.) :- Leave granted.
2. These appeals arising out of proceedings for acquisition of land for the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, hereinafter referred to as the Board, raise common questions involving the interpretation of sub-sec. (2) of S. 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the L.A. Act) and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The Board has been constituted under S. 3 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act. Under S. 15 of the U.P. Act one of the functions of the Board is to frame and execute housing and improvement schemes and other projects. S. 16 provides that the Board may on its own or at the instance of a local authority frame a housing or improvement scheme and that the Board shall frame such a scheme when so directed by the State Government. S. 17 prescribes the matters which are required to be provided for such schemes. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 28 makes provision for preparation of a notice by the Board when any housing or improvement scheme has been framed and the said notice is required to be published in the manner as prescribed in sub-sec. (2) of S. 28. Section 30 makes provision for filing of objections against the scheme and S. 31 provides for sanction of the scheme, with or without modifications, after considering the objections, if any, received under S. 30. Such sanction is to be given by the Board when the estimated cost of the schemes does not exceed Rupees 20,00,000/- and by the State Government where the estimated cost exceed that amount. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 32 provides that whenever the Board or the State Government sanctions a housing or improvement scheme, it shall be notified in the Gazette and sub-sec. (2) lays down that the notification under sub-sec. (1) in respect of any scheme shall be conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. In case where the scheme is sanctioned by the Board an appeal lies to the State Government against the decision of the Board under sub-sec. (3) of S. 32 and if the scheme is altered or cancelled by the State Government on such appeal the concellation or alteration is required to be notified in the Gazette under sub-sec. (4) of S. 32. Section 55 makes provision for acquisition of land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of the U.P. Act and lays down that such acquisition may be made under the provisions of the L.A. Act as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh and further provides that the L.A. Act for this purpose shall be subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to the U.P. Act. Section 64 provides for the constitution of one or more Tribunals by the State Government for the purpose of performing the functions of the Court with reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the L.A. Act, as modified by the Schedule to the U.P. Act. In the Schedule to the U.P. Act modifications have been introduced in the provisions of the L.A. Act. Some of the said modifications which are relevant for the purpose of the present case are:
(a) Clause (i) has been added in S. 3 whereby the local authority has been defined to include the Board
(b) The first publication in the Official Gazette of a notice of any housing or improvement scheme under S. 28 or clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 31 of the U.P. Act is to have the same effect as publication in the Official Gazette of a notification under subsec. (1) of S. 4 of the L.A. Act.
(c) The publication of a notification under sub-sec. (1) or, as the case may be, under subsec. (4) of S. 32 of the U.P. Act is to have the same effect as a declaration by the State Government under S. 6 of the L.A. Act.
(d) Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of S. 17 of the L.A. Act as applicable in the State of U.P. have been substituted by sub-sec. (
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
