1984 Supreme(All) 257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. N. Seth, A. Banerji and S. D. Agarwala, JJ.
DOCTORS SAHKARI GRAH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD. - Appellant
Versus
AVAS AVAM VIKAS PARISHAD - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 8917 Of 1981
Decided On : 05/07/1984

The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, stood incorporated in the Adhiniyam, subject to the modifications mentioned in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. Therefore, any subsequent amendment made in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would not have any bearing on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated by the Adhiniyam.

Headnote:

The court held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, stood incorporated in the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (the Adhiniyam), subject to the modifications mentioned in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. Therefore, any subsequent amendment made in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would not have any bearing on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated by the Adhiniyam. The court further held that the provisions of the Adhiniyam relating to compulsory acquisition of land did not suffer from the vice of discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Doctors Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and Ram Babu Gupta, filed a petition challenging the authority of the Board constituted under the Adhiniyam to acquire their rights in respect of certain Bhumidhari plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. They submitted that in view of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam, which lays down that any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh which for this purpose shall be subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to this Act, it was not open to the State Government to issue the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam after a lapse of more than three years of the notification dated 4th of April, 1970 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Adhiniyam.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, stood incorporated in the Adhiniyam, subject to the modifications mentioned in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. Therefore, any subsequent amendment made in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would not have any bearing on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated by the Adhiniyam. The court further held that the provisions of the Adhiniyam relating to compulsory acquisition of land did not suffer from the vice of discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, stood incorporated in the Adhiniyam, subject to the modifications mentioned in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam? 2. Whether any subsequent amendment made in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would have any bearing on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated by the Adhiniyam? 3. Whether the provisions of the Adhiniyam relating to compulsory acquisition of land suffered from the vice of discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, stood incorporated in the Adhiniyam, subject to the modifications mentioned in the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. This was because the Adhiniyam provided for the constitution of a Board and invested it with very wide powers for carrying out various housing and improvement schemes. It also provided for compulsory acquisition of land on a large scale in case it became necessary to do so for purposes of execution of the scheme. In the circumstances, the State legislature thought that the general procedure for acquisition of land for public purposes, till the stage of obtaining orders for acquisition of land under Section 7 of the Act, as also that in some other subsequent provisions contained in the Act, may not be apt and it accordingly proceeded to provide for a special procedure therefor. 2. The court held that any subsequent amendment made in Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act would not have any bearing on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated by the Adhiniyam. This was because the legislature had intended to incorporate the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh in the year 1965, in the Adhiniyam. Therefore, any future amendment in the Act would not affect the acquisition of property in connection with a scheme formulated under the Adhiniyam. 3. The court held that the provisions of the Adhiniyam relating to compulsory acquisition of land did not suffer from the vice of discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This was because the complex nature of modern urban development schemes made it a different category altogether from the common run of public purposes for which compulsory acquisition is undertaken by the State. Conceptwise and strategywise development schemes stand on a separate footing and classification of town planning schemes differently from the routing projects commanding compulsory acquisition may certainly be justified as based on a rational differentia which has a reasonable relation to the end in view, namely, improvement of towns and disciplining their improvement.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.