1993 (8) TMI 299 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the limitation of three years prescribed in the first proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) to the acquisitions under Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (the Act).
2. Whether the Act adapted the L.A. Act by reference or by incorporation.
3. The validity of the acquisition process and compensation to landowners in light of procedural delays.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the Three-Year Limitation:
The primary issue was whether the three-year limitation prescribed in the first proviso to Section 6 of the L.A. Act applies to the acquisitions under Sections 28 and 32 of the Act. The Court concluded that the limitation of three years does not apply to the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The Act operates as a separate code, and the subsequent amendments to the L.A. Act do not automatically extend to it.

2. Adaptation by Reference or Incorporation:
The Court examined whether the provisions of the L.A. Act were incorporated into the Act by reference or by incorporation. It was determined that Section 55 of the Act, read with the schedule, made an express incorporation of the provisions of Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the L.A. Act, as modified. The subsequent amendments to Section 6 of the L.A. Act did not become part of the Act, as the U.P. Legislature did not intend for any subsequent amendments to the L.A. Act to apply automatically to the proceedings under the Act.

3. Validity of Acquisition Process and Compensation:
The Court acknowledged the procedural delays in the acquisition process but held that the acquisition notifications were valid. However, due to the delays, the Court directed that the compensation to landowners should be calculated based on the market value prevalent in the year the declarations analogous to Section 6 of the L.A. Act were published. This approach was adopted to balance individual interests with larger public interest and to avoid injustice to those who had invested in the housing colonies constructed by the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.

Conclusion:
The appeals and writ petitions were dismissed, but the appellants and petitioners were granted compensation based on the market value at the time of the declaration, considering the procedural delays. The Court emphasized that the Act operates independently and is not affected by subsequent amendments to the L.A. Act. The decision maintained the validity of the acquisition process while ensuring fair compensation to the affected landowners.