Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (3) TMI 958

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 25th of July, 1986. The award was made on 22nd July, 1988. 2. The appellants whose land had been acquired filed Writ Petition No. 1707 of 1986 challenging the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act to the extent of the acquisition of their land. Indore Bench of the High Court rendered the judgment annulling the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act by holding that Scheme No. 23 framed under M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 did not operate against certain specified land of the respondent Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority'). 3. The Development Authority, being aggrieved, against the judgment of the High Court filed civil A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ree years and during this period the appellant has brought about the bulk of the improvements in the neighbourhood. We direct that 25 per cent of the potential value of the land relatable to the improvements made by the appellant would only be available to the respondents, but in fixing market value all other legitimate considerations shall be taken into account. We make it clear that we have no intention to extend the benefit under Section 28A of the Act to the owners of the lands already acquired under the notification of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of our direction that the respondents' lands shall be deemed to have been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on January 1, 1988. In fact our order must be deemed to be a separate notific .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch the Supreme Court for clarification or modification of the order passed by it. 8. Thereafter the claimants filed these appeals. The Development Authority has also filed the cross appeal. 9. Shri Sidharth Shankar Ray, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants contended that keeping in view the scheme of the Act, the authorities were required to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act within one year of the deemed date of notification under Section 4(1) and an award within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6. And if the declaration under Section 6 is taken from the date of rendering of judgment by this Court, i.e., 11th November, 1991 then failure to make the award within two years from that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also not required to be given within two years, as has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. The direction given by the Court was for redetermination of the compensation only. The amount of compensation was to redetermined keeping in view the deemed date given to the notification under Section 4 and the improvements made by the authorities between 2nd August, 1985 (the original date of issuance of notification) and the 1st January, 1988 (the deemed date of notification). The appellants entitlement to the increase in the potential value of the land was limited to 25% only. The development authority was held entitled to take possession of the land under Section 16 subject to redetermination of the amount of compensa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore not binding on the parties. That if it be deemed that this Court decided the earlier case in exercise of its extra-ordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution even then it is bad in law because the Court cannot exercise its power under Article 142 in the face of express statutory provisions. That the appellants could not be deprived of their property without giving market price for the same. For this he made reference to a number of judgments including the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. [1998]2SCR795 . In particular reference was made to paras 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55 56 of the said judgment. The submission has no force. In the earlier judgment the Court had u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates