SAVITRI CAIRAEversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR.

                                  SA VITRI CAI RAE                                    A
                                          v.
                U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ANR.

                                    MAY I, 2003

        [V.N. KHARE, CJ, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.l                      B

            Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965-Sections·
     3, 29, 32 and 55-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23{1-A)-Land
     acquisition under the Adhiniyam-Applicability of Land Acquisition Act to the     C
     Acquisition made under the Adhiniyam-Held, applicable-By reason of legal
     fiction created under the Adhiniyam, Parishad is deemed to be a local
     authority-In its capacity as a local authority under the Act, Parishad invokes
     the provisions of the Act-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14.

           Lands were acquired under U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad                    D
     Adhiniyam, 1965. The special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award.
     Claimants not satisfied with the compensation sought reference. The
     reference court enhanced the compensation and also granted solatium at
     the rate of 15%, interest at the rate of 9% and ad~itional amount under
     Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Parishad preferred
     appeals against the order of reference court. High Court, partly allowing        E
     the appeals, granted solatium at the rate of 30% instead of 15% and also
     interest at the rate of 15% for one year and 9% for subsequent years. Hence
     the present appeals by the Parishad and the claimants.

           Parishad contended that the grant of compensation to the claimants F
     under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act was erroneous in view of the
..   fact that the Adhiniyam was enacted by the State Legislature whereas the
     Land Acquisition Act was enacted by the Parliament; that the provisions
     of the Adhiniyam could not have been held to be ultra vires Article 14 of
     the Constitution of India; that having regard to the fact that clause (5) of
     the Schedule appended to the Adhiniyam specifically referred to the G
     quantum ofsolatium payable by the State, enhancement thereof by invoking
     the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be held to be justified;
     that the doctrine of incorporation by reference in a case of this nature
     would not lead to the conclusion that as and when any amendment is made
     in the Parliamentary Act, the State legislation would stand automatically H
                                        1081
    1082                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A amended, in view of the phraseology used in Section 55 Of the Adhiniyam;
    and that High Court had committed a clerical mistake in not awarding
    additional compensation.

             Disposing of the appeals, the Court

B         HELD: I. It is true that ordinarily equality clause enshrined in Article
    14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in the matter of
    enforcement of a State Legislation vis-a-vis a Parliamentary Legislation
    and/or the Legislation of another State. In the presj!nt case, Uttar Pradesh
    Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 provides for acquisition of
C   land in terms of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By reason of legal fiction
    created under the Adhiniyam, the Parishad is deemed to be a local
    authority. The Parishad invokes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 in its capacity as a local authority under the Act. The State issued a
    notification in terms of Section 29 of the Adhiniyam and made declaration
    in terms of Section 32 which are on similar terms as contained in Sections
D   4 and 6 of the Act respectively. The purpose for acquisition of land both
    under the Parliamentary Act and the State Act is the same.
                                                          11085-H; 1086-C, D, El

          Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao and Ors., 1197313SCR39,
    followed.
E
          U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Paris had v. Jainul Islam and Anr., 11998] 2 SCC
    467 and Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasant Rao and Ors., 120031 7 SCC
    657, relied on.

          The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, AIR 119541SC493;
F   The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Ananthi Amma.f and Ors., JT (1985) I
    SC 247 and Prakash Amichand Shah v. Stale of Gujarat and Ors., (19851
    Suppl. 3 SCR 1925, distinguished.

           2. Once High Court had held that the Amending Act of 1984 was
    applicable for the grant of compensation, it appears that some clerical error
G   crept into the judgment of the High Court in not awarding additional
    compensation. The claimants are also entitled to the additional
    compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Aequisition Act. Further,
    the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the.
    first year and 15 percent for the subsequent years,, 11091-D, El

H          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 1999.
 SAVITRI CAI RAE v. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [KHARE, CJ.] I 083

     From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the Allahabad High             A
Court in F.A. No. 891/91.

                                    WITH

        Civil Appeal Nos. 6093 of 1999 and 6096, 6097, 6775, 6776, 6091 of
2001.                                                                            B
        And Civil Appeal No. 4866 ofl999.

     With Civil Appeal Nos. 5522 to 5524, 5526 to 5549of1999 and 7224,
7225, 7263 to 7277 of 200 I.
                                                                                 c
      Dinesh Dwivedi, G.L. Sanghi, Rakesh K. Khanna, Ms. Rashmi Khanna,
P.N. Gupta, Vineet Sinha, SudhirGupta, Rajendra Pd. Saxena, Ambhoj Kumar
Sinha (NP), K.K. Gupta, Surya Kant, Rajeev K. Garg, A.D.N. Rao, Ms. Abha
R. Shanna, J.P. Dhanda, N.M. Popli, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Anil Kumar Sangha!,
Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta and M.P. Shorawala for the            D
appearing parties.

     Ex-parte for Respondents in C.A. Nos. 5522, 5527, 5532, 5541 to 5543
of 1999.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                 E
       KHARE, CJ. On 5th March, 2003 when these appeals came up for
hearing before a Bench of this Court, the Bench was of the view that these
matters, require to be heard and decided by a Bench of three Judges. It is in
th is way these appeals have come up for hearing before us.

       Before us, there are two sets of civil appeals-one set of appeals is at the F
instance of the claimants whose land has been acquired and the same is
directed against the order and judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court
partly allowing the first appeals of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter
referred to as "the Parishad") and the other set of appeal is at the instance of
the Parishad.                                                                      G
     The Uttar Pradesh Legislature has enacted Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam").
The Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short "the Parishad") was constituted
under the Adhiniyam. One of the duties assigned to the Parishad under the
Adhiniyam is to frame and carry out housing schemes by acquiring land. In H
    1084                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A that view of fhe matter, the Parishad issued a notification dated 2nd October,
  1982 under Sec_tion 29 of the Adhiniyam proposing to acquire 136.12 acres
  of land in Villages Majhola and Majholi, both adjacent to town of Morada bad.
  The said notification under Section 29 was followed by a notification dated
  5th May, 1984 issued under Section 92 of the Adhiniyam which corresponds
  to notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. On 22nd
B September, 1986 the Special Land Acquisition Officer gave an award in
  respect of the Land acquired by the Parishad. The Land Acquisition Offi~er
  granted different rates of compensation in respect of the lands so acquired.
  The claimants were not satisfied with the compensation offered to them by
  the Collector and, therefore, they sought reference before the Reference Court.
C The Reference Court, by an order and judgment dated 18th April, 1990
  enhanced the compensation from Rs. 56 per sq. metre to Rs. 180 per sq.
  metre and also granted solatium at the rate of 1-5 per cent, interest at the rate
  of 8 per cent and additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land
  Acquisition Act. Simultaneously the Reference Court deducted 25 per cent of
  the compensation towards the development deductions. The Parishad
D aggrieved against the aforesaid order and judgment and preferred appeals
   before the High Court. The High Court divided the' entire acquired Land into
  three categories by applying belting system. The High Court granted solatium
  at the rate of 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent as awarded by the Reference
  Court and also interest at rate of 15 per cent for one year and 9 per cent for
E subsequent years. Consequently appeals were partly allowed.
          We are first taken through the appeals preferred by the Parishad, The
    learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Parishad relied upon
    decisions of this Court in Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat and
    Ors., (1985] Suppl. 3 SCR 1925, the State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Ananthi
F   Ammal and Ors., JT (1985) I SC 247 and The Stale of Madhya Pradesh v.
    G.C. Mandawar. AIR (1954) SC 493 and submitted that the grant of
    compensation to the claimants under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act
    was wholly erroneous in view of the fact that the Adhiniyam was enacted by
    the State Legislature whereas the Land Acquisition Act was enacted by the
G   Parliament, the provisions of the Adhiniyam could not have been held to be
    ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

          The learned counsel further contended that in view of the factual matrix
    involved the decisions of this Court in UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v.
    Jainul Islam and Anr., [ 1998] 2 SCC 467 wherein this Court was not concerned
H   with the construction of Section 55 of Adhiniyam read with the Schedule
 SAVITRI CAI RAE v. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD (KHARE, CJ.] ] 085

appended thereto vis-a-vis Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the matter A
requires reconsideration by this Courts. The learned counsel also urged that
having regard to the fact that Clause 6 of the Schedule appended to the
Adhiniyam specifically refers to the quantum of solatium payable by the
State on acquisition of the land, enhancement thereof by invoking the
provisions of Land· Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be held to be justified. B
Learned counsel also contended that the doctrine of incorporation by reference
in a case of this nature would not lead to the conclusion that as and when any
amendment is made in the Parliamentary Act, the State legislation would
stand Automatically amended. In any event, having regard to the phraseology
used in Section 55 of the Adhiniyam such a construction is not permissible.

      The Adhiniyam was enacted for constitution of the Parishad, to provide
                                                                                  c
for the establishment, incorporation and functioning of a housing and
development board in Uttar Pradesh.

      The Parishad indisputably has power to acquire land. Acquisition of
such land for the purpose of fulfilling the object of the said Act therefore D
would const1tute public purpose. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of Adhiniyam
provides that inter alia for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act, the Parishad
shall be deemed to be a 'local authority'.

     Section 55 of the Adhiniyam empowers the Parishad to acquire land
which reads as under:- ·                                                          E
           "55. Power to acquire land-(1) 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. I of 1894) as amended in its application to Uttar Prauesh which
       for this purpose shall be subject to the modifications specified in the    F
       Schedule to this Act.

           (2) If any land in respect of which betterment fee has been levied
       under this Act is subsequently required for any of the purposes of this
       Act, such levy shall not be deemed to prevent the acquisition of the
       land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. I of 1894)." G

      It is true that ordinarily equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India cannot be invoked in the matter of enforcement of a
State Legislation vis-a-vis a Parliamentary Legislation and/or the Legislation
of an another State.
                                                                                  H
    1086                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A          In G.C. Mandawar (supra), it was held that Article 14 does· not authorise
    striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law
    of another State on the same subject its provisions are discriminatory, nor
    does it contemplate a law enacted by Parliament or by the State legislature
    dealing with similar subjects being held to the unconstitutional by a process
B   of comparative study of the provisions of the two enactments; as the sources
    of authority for the two statutes being different, Article 14 can have no
    application.

           The decision in Ananlhi Ammal (supra) is also on the same line.

           But the said decisions have no application in the instant case. The
C Adhiniyam provides for acquisition of land in terms of Land Acquisition Act.
    By reason of legal fiction created under the Adhiniyam, the Parishad is deemed
    to be a local authority. The Parishad invokes the provisions of the Land
    Acquisition Act in its capacity as a local authority under the Land Acquisition
    Act. The State issue a notification in terms of Section 29 of the Adhiniyam
D   and make declaration in terms of Section 32 thereof which are on similar
    terms as contained in Sections 4 and 6 of th'e Land Acquisition Act
                                                                                       >
    respectively.

          The purpose for acquisition of land both under the Parliamentary Act
    and the State Act is the same. An order of acquisition is to be passed only
E   by the State. In Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao and Ors., [ 1973]
    3 SCR 39 a 7-Judges Bench of this Court categorically held that an owner
    of the land is not concerned with the nature of the public purpose that is
    whether land is acquired for a hospital or for school or for housing. So long
    as the acquiring authority and the public purposes wherefore lands are acquired
F   are the same; in view of the fact that provisions have been made for payment
    of compensation in terms of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, although
    acquisition is made under the State Act, but if higher amount of compensation
    is payable under the latter, such higher amount of compensation will be
    payable. It was held:

G               "It is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or
            another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the
            existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different
            treatment from another equally situated the owner who is discriminated
            against, can claim the protection of Article 14."

H          It may be, as contended by the learned counsel, that therein this Court
      SAVITRI CAIRAEv. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [KHARE, CJ.] 1087

     was concerned with two enactments of States but the principles laid down          A
     therein would be attracted, having regard to the fact that although acquisition
     is to be made in terms of the Adhiniyam but the procedures laid down
     therefor under the Land Acquisition Act are to be followed and in both the
     cases, the acquiring authority is the State.

           This Court in Jainul Islam (supra) categorically held that the provisions   B
     of the Land Acquisition Act is to be read into the provisions of the Adhiniyam.

           The said question again came up for consideration again before a 3-
     Judges Bench in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasant Rao and Ors., [2002]

-.   7 SCC 657. In the said case also, identical contentions were raised but this
     Court did not find any merit therein. This Court followed Nagpur Improvement
     Trust v. Vithal Rao, [1973] I SCC 500 as also Jainul Islam (supra) holding;
                                                                                       C


                "17. Clause JO of the schedule which effects several modifications
            in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, modifies sub-section (2)
            thereof as follows:-
                                                                                       D
           "(2) The full stop at the end of sub-section (2) of section 23 shall be
                 deemed to be changed to a colon, and the following proviso shall
                 be deemed to be added:-
                 Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any land acquired
                 under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, except                  E
           (a)   buildings in the actual occupation of the owner or occupied free
                 of rent by a .relative of the owner, and land appu1tenant thereto,
                 and
           (b) gardens not let to tenants but used by the owners as a place of         F
                 resort."

                 I9. It will thus be seen that the three State Acts follow the same
            pattern and incorporate a common scheme. The provisions of the
            Land Acquisition Act with certain modifications are made applicable
            to acquisitions made for purposes of execution of the schemes under        G
            those Acts. There is also a striking similarity between schedule to the
            Punjab and Nagpur Acts, and even though they may not be identical
            they are in pari materia. The schedule to the U.P. Act is not as
]           detailed but that_ is due to the fact that many of the modifications in
            the Land Acquisition Act have been brought about by the provisions
            of the Act itself. The Schedule modifies sections 17,23 and 49 of the      H
    1088                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2003] 3 S.C.R.

A          Land Acquisition Act, and adds a new sec:tion 17-A inserted in Punjab
           and Nagpur Acts. It also gives to the notifications under Section
           28(1) and 32(1) of the U.P. Act, the same effect as notifications
           published under sections 4 and 6 respectively of the ~and Acquisition
           Act."

B         In Vasant Rao (supra), this court, as noticed hereinbefore, followed
    Jainul Islam (supra) holding:

               "40. This Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul
           Islam and Anr. (supra) noticed the schem: of the U.P. Act and observed    ·'
           that Sc:ction 55 of the U.P. Act makes a reference to the provisions
c          of the Land Acquisition Act, as amendi:d, in its application to Uttar
           Pradesh, and has laid down that any land or any interest therein
           required by the Parishad for any of the purposes of the Ahiniyam
           may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
           as amended, in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, which for
D          this purpose has to be subject to the modifications specified in the
           schedule to the U.P. Act. Similar provisions are found in other
           enactments and reference was made to the Calcutta Improvement
           Act, 1911 whereunder the Board of Trustees of the Calcutta
           Improvement Trust was entrusted with very vide powers for the
           purpose of carrying out improvement schemes within the municipal
E          limits of Calcutta. After noticing the provisions of the Calcutta
           Improvement Act, 1911, this Court noticed the judgment of the Privy
           Council in Secretary of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance
           Society Ltd. (supra) in which the question arose-whether the
           amendment in the Land Acquisition Act was applicable so as to confer
F          a right of appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment of the
           High Court in an appeal from the Tribunal. The said question was
           answered in the negative by the Privy Council. This Court quoted the
           following passages appearing in Secretary of State v. Hindustan
           Cooperative Insurance Society ltd. (supra).

G          "The modifications are contained partly in the body of the Act and
           partly in a schedule attached to the Act. They are numerous and
           substantial and the effect is, in their Lordship's opinion to enact for
           the purposes of the local Act a special law for the acquisition of land
           by the trustees within the limited area over which their powers extend.

H          *                                *                          *
     SA VITRI CAI RAE v. U.P. AVAS EVAM VIK.AS PARISHAD fK.HARE. CJ.] I 089

           Their Lordships regard the local Act as doing nothing more thari A
           incorporating certain provisions from an existing Act, and for
           convenience of drafting doing so by reference to that Act, instead of
           setting out for itself at length the provisions which it was d~sired to
           adopt."

          Therein this Court considered the various other decisions relied upon      B
    by learned counsel and observed:

                "48. So far as the U.P. Act is concerned the judgment in U.P.
           Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam an Anr., (supra) answers
           all the questions raised before us. It has been held that so far as the
           U.P. Act is concerned, the Land Acquisition Act, as modified, stands      c
           incorporated in the U.P. Act. However, as a matter of construction it
           was held that Section 55 of the U.P. Act, while incorporating the
           provisions of the Land Acquisition Act intended to apply to acquisition
           made under the U.P. Act the beneficial amendments that may be
           brought about for determination and payment of compensation, in the       D
           Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There was nothing in the U.P. Act which
           precluded the Court from adopting such a construction, and this was
i
           necessary to save the Act from the vice of arbitrary and hostile
           discrimination.

               49. This Court also found that the provisivns of the Nagpur Act, E
           with which we are concerned, were similar to the provisions of the
           U.P. Act. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in paragraph
           27 of the report. We have also considered the provisions of the Nagpur
           Act as well as the provisions of the Punjab Act. We are satisfied that
           the aforesaid two Acts as well as the U.P. Act have a common scheme
           and pattern. All the three legislations relate to town planning and F
           development and each one of them specifies the various schemes that
           may be undertaken. For acquisition of land for the purposes of any
           of the schemes under the said Acts, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
           has been made applicable with certain modifications as contained in
           the schedule to the said Acts which are numerous and substantial. G
           The modification made are also similar. We have found no distinction
           in the three Acts which may have a bearing on the question relating
           to legislative incorporation of the Land Acquisition Act in the State
           Acts. We are, therefore, of the view that what has been held by this
           Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and anr.,
            (supra) with regard to U.P. Act holds good for the Punjab Act as well H
    1090                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A           as the Nagpur Act, Consequently we are unable to subscribe to the
            view taken in Bhatinda Improvement Trust v. Do/want Singh and
            Ors., (supra) that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have not
            been incorporated into the Punjab Act and that they have merely been
            cited or referred to in the Punjab Act."

B          The contentions to the effect that Article 14 of the Constitution is not
    attracted was also negatived.

           In our view, reliance placed by learned counsel on Prakash Amichand
    Shah (supra) is totally mis-placed. This Court therein was considering the
    provisions of acquisition under the Bombay Town Planning Act. Referring to
C   the scheme of Town Planning Act it was held that the provisions of payment
    of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, I 894 cannot be held to
    have any application. The Court held that the scheme of acquisition under the
    Town Improvement Act and the Land Acquisition Act are different. It was
    noticed that Section 32 of the Act provides for determination of the cost of
D   the scheme, the development charges to be levied and the contribution to be
    made the local authority etc. It was further noticed that there were three types
    of taking over of land under the Town Improvement Act, firstly, under section
    I I, secondly under section 53 and thirdly under section 84 of the Act each
    being a part of the single scheme but each one having a specific object and
    public purpose to be achieved. It was noticed:
E
                 "While as regards the detennination of compensation it may be
            possible to apply the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
            with some modification as provided in the Schedule to the Act in the
            case of lands acquired either under section 11 or under section 84 of
            the Act, in the case of lands which are needed for the local authority
F           under the Town Planning Scheme which authorises allotment of
            reconstituted plots to persons from whom original plots are taken, it
            is difficult to apply the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

           On the said findings alone it was held that provisions of the Land
G Acquisition Act would not be attracted.
           As regard the issue as to whether A11icle 14 of the Constitution would
    be attracted or not it was noticed that in terms of the provisions of the Town
    Planning Scheme there is no option under that Act to acquire the land under
    the Land Acquisition Act.
H
 SAVITRI CAI RAE v. U.I'. AVAS EVAM VIKAS l'ARISllAD IKllARE. CJ.] 1091

      In the instant case, for the purpose of providing housing facilities to the   A
people, lands undoubtedly can be acquired both under the Land Acquisition
Act as also under the Adhiniyam.

       Furthermore, Section 17-A inserted in the Adhiniyam also makes a
difference. In Venkat Rao (supra) insertion of Section 17-A was noticed
which, as noticed hereinbefore, provides that the land has first to be acquired     B
by the Collector for the Government and thereafter it is transferred by the
Government to the Mahapalika only on payment of its costs.

      For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed
by the Parishad. Coming to the appeals filed by the claimants, we do not find       C
any infirmity in the judgment and order of the High Court. Hence, we find
that both sets of appeals have no merit.

      At the end, Mr. G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for some
of the claimants urged that the High Court has committed a clerical mistake
in not awarding additional compensation. Once the High Court had held that          D
the Amending Act of 1984 was applicable for the grant of compensation, it
appears that some clerical error crept into the judgment of the High Court in
not awarding additional compensation. In fact, in accordance with the
conclusion at which we have arrived, the claimants are also entitled to the
additional compensation under Section 23( I-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Fmiher, the claimants are also entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent for   E
the first year and 15 per cent for the subsequent years. With the aforesaid
modification, both sets of appeals stand disposed of. There will be no order
as to costs.

K.K.T.                                                     Appeals disposed of.