Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2531 (ALL)

RAMESH MISHRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2008-12-08

ARUN TANDON, DILIP GUPTA

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner has sought the quashing of the notification dated 26th December, 1979 issued under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parishad Adhiniyam’) as well as the declaration dated 5th November, 1982 made under Section 32(1) of the Parishad Adhiniyam on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed as the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land Acquisition Act’) was not made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of an area measuring 0.1170 hectares in Plot No. 89 and 0.0550 hectares in Plot No. 97 situated at Mauja Harpur, Mahal Khurd, Pargana Ballia, district Ballia. These two plots were included in the notification issued under Section 28 of the Parishad Adhiniyam on 26th December, 1979 which was subsequently published in the official Gazette on 8th March, 1980. It was mentioned therein that the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parishad’) has framed a Scheme at Ballia named as Harpur Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grishsthan Yojana Ballia and objections were invited within thirty days from the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette. The declaration under Section 32(1) of the Parishad Adhiniyam was made on 5th November, 1982 and it was subsequently published in the Gazette on 27th November, 1982. It was notified that the Government had sanctioned the Scheme known as the "Harpur Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grishsthan Yojana”. The records also indicate that subsequently a notification dated 29th June, 1983 was issued by the Government mentioning therein that in view of the urgency, the Government has directed under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act that even though no award has been made, the Collector may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) take possession of the land needed for public purpose. 3. We have heard Sri P.M.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri R.S. Rana learned counsel appearing for the Parishad. 4. 3. We have heard Sri P.M.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri R.S. Rana learned counsel appearing for the Parishad. 4. Sri P.M.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act which was inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984 w.e.f. 24th September, 1984 is applicable to the acquisitions made under the Parishad Adhiniyam and, therefore, the acquisition lapses as admittedly no award has been made till date. 5. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.S. Rana, learned counsel on the other hand submit that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act are not applicable to acquisitions made under the Parishad Adhiniyam and, therefore, the acquisitions cannot lapse. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Supreme Court in Satya Pal and others v. State of U.P. and others, (1997) 9 SCC 117 , examined this controversy and has observed that Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act inserted by Act No. 68 of 1984 has no application to the acquisitions made under the Parishad Adhiniyam. The relevant observations are as follows : "...........Under these circumstances, it is now settled law that the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application to the acquisition under the Adhiniyam. As a result, Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, has no application. The notification under the Adhiniyam sirnilar to Section 4(1) and the declaration similar to Section 6 do not stand lapsed after the expiry of two years from the date the Amendment Act has come into force......" 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. 9. The notification under the Adhiniyam sirnilar to Section 4(1) and the declaration similar to Section 6 do not stand lapsed after the expiry of two years from the date the Amendment Act has come into force......" 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another, AIR 1998 SC 1028 in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and others, (2002) 7 SCC 657 in Savitri Cairae v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another, (2003) 6 SCC 255 and in Kanak (Smt.) and another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others, (2003) 7 SCC 693 , in support of his contention that the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act will apply to acquisitions made by issuance of the notifications under the Parishad Adhiniyam. 10. In our opinion, these decisions which deal with the determination and payment of compensation will have no application as was observed by the Supreme Court in Jainul Islam (supra): “Keeping in view the principles laid down in the said decisions of this Court, it has to be held that if the provisions of the Adhiniyam are so construed as to mean that the provisions of the L.A. Act, as they stood on the date of enactment of the Adhiniyam, would be applicable to acquisition of land for the purpose of the Adhiniyam and that the amendments introduced in the L.A. Act by the 1984 Act relating to determination and payment of compensation are not applicable, the consequence would be that the provisions of the L.A. Act, as applicable under the Adhiniyam, would suffer from the vice of arbitrary and hostile discrimination. Such a consequence would be avoided if the provisions of the Adhiniyam are construed to mean that the provisions of the L.A. Act, as amended by the 1984 Act, relating to determination and payment of compensation would apply to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Adhiniyam.....We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a proper construction of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam it must be held that while incorporating the provisions of the L.A. Act in the Adhiniyam the intention of the Legislature was that amendments in the L.A. Act relating to determination and payment of compensation would be applicable to acquisition of lands for the purposes of the Adhiniyam. This means that the amendments introduced in the L.A. Act by the 1984 Act relating to determination and payment of compensation, viz. Section 23 (1-A) and Sections 23(2) and 28 as amended by the 1984 Act would be applicable to acquisitions for the purposes of the Adhiniyam under Section 55 of the Adhiniyam.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Savitri Cairae (supra) and Kanak (supra) also deal with determination and payment of compensation and are, therefore, of no benefit to the petitioner. 12. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ————