NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VASANTRAO AND ORS

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 636

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, B.P. SINGH

Judgment text

t NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST r V. VASANTRAO AND ORS. t SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 [B. N. KIRPAL, CJ. , SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B. P. SINGH, JJ.

] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 and Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984)-Sections 6,23(1-A), 23(2) and 28-Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922-Section 59-Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936-Section 59- Uttar Pradesh Awas and Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965-Section 55- Provisions ofState Acts providing acquisition under Land Acquisition Ac/- Applicability of the subsequenl amendments of Land Acquisition Acl to the State Acts-Whether Land Acquisition Act incorporated or merely referred to in lhe Slate Acts-Held, Land Acquisition Act legislatively incorporated in the State Acts and hence subsequent amendments ofSection 6 will have no effect on the acquisition made under the State Acts-Bw claimants are entitled to the benefits conferred by section 23(/-A) and sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act because while incorporating the provisions ofthe Land acquisition Act in the State Acts, the intention of the legislature was that amendments in the Land Acquisition Act relating to determination and payment ofcompensation would be applicable to acquisition oflands for lhe purposes of the State Acts.

Legislation by incorporation-Effect of-Held, when an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, later Act constitutes an independent legislation and repeal ofthe first statute by a third does not affect the second-But where there is mere reference to an ) earlier Act in later Act, modification, repeal or amendment ofthe statute that • is referred will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred- Whether a former statute is merely referredto in a later statute, or it is wholly or partia! Zv incorporated therein is a question of construction.. Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 and Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, provide for acquisition of land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act subject to the modifications made thereto by the Acts NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VASANTRAO 637 and/or the schedule to the Acts.

The common question for consideration in the present cases were whether Sections 6, 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of Land Acquisition Act, stands incorporated or merely referred to in the State Acts in order to decide whether the claimants were entitled to the benefits given by subsequent amendments of the provisions above mentioned by Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 and Land J Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the matters arising under the Punjab Act, High court held that claimants whose lands were acquired under the Punjab Act were entitled to additional compensation u/s 23(1-A) and also to the solatium u/s 23(2) and interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by 1984 Act.

· In matters relating to Nagpur Act, High Court held that since Land Acquisition Act is merely referred to in Nagpur Act, the provisions of Section 6 including proviso thereto of Land Acquisition Act apply to acquisitions under Nagpur Act; and that notice u/s 39 of the Act (corresponding to Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act) lapsed since notification u/s 45 of the Act (corresponding to Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act) was published after more than three years from the date of notification u/s 39 of the Act. In matters relating to U. P. Act, High Court held that since Section 6 of Land Acquisition act was legislatively incorporates in the U. P. Act which was of 1965, subsequent amendments of section 6 of Land acquisition Act in 1967 did not affect the provisions of U. P. Act, and therefore acquisition proceedings did not lapse on expiry of period of three years from the date of issuance of notification u/s 28 of the Act (corresponding to Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act).

In appeal to this Court Jallandhar Improvement Trust in the matters relating to Punjab Act contended that the claimants were not entitled to the beneficial provisions under the Land Acquisition Act as brought in by amending the Land Acquisition Act even in respect of acquisition under Punjab Act as the Scheme of the Punjab Act was different from the Scheme of Land Acquisition Act and different equities arose under the two Acts; that the compensation paid was not justifiable having regard the principles laid down in Maneklal Chhotalal and State ofGujarat cases; that since the two legislations were under two different entries of the Constitution, Article 14 of the Constitution of India could not be invoked; that since under the Punjab Act, trust is the acquiring authority and not the State, there cannot be allegation of discrimination against it; and that even if claimants cannot be deprived of enhanced solatium under Section 23(2) of land Acquisition Act, in the facts of the case they are not entitled to the benefit of additional compensation payable under Section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act, which was brought in by way of amendment in 1984.

Nagpur improvement Trust and U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad contended that provisions of Nagpur and U. P. Acts and the modifications brought about by these Acts show that the Land Acquisition Act stood incorporated by legislation in the state Acts and therefore it cannot be said that legislature intended that subsequent amendments in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should apply to an acquisition under the said Act; that mere absence of a limitation of time period for issuance of declaration under Section 6 would not imply a breach of Article 14 of the Constitution; that the provisions pertaining to compensation would be different from the provisions as pertaining to the time limit of notifying sanction of the draft.

S'cheme; that the cases of this Court pertaining to compensation being equal to the compensation paid under the Land Acquisition Act in view of Article 14 would have no applicability for invoking the proviso to Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act in respect of the scheme under the Nagpur Act. Respondents in cases pertaining to Punjab Act contended that awarding solatium and interest under beneficial provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in year 1984 by High court is correct; that the provisions of the Punjab Act will have to be struck down as discriminatory if the claimants are not given benefit of the beneficial provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in year 1984. The respondents in cases pertaining to Nagpur Act and U. P.

Act contended that Section 59 as well as Section 61(b) of Nagpur Act simply cites/refers to the Land Acquisition Act and does not incorporate referentially, hence all the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act must apply automatically; that even if it is assumed that the provisions incorporate the Land Acquisition Act, it falls in exceptional situations carved out by this Court namely that it is supplemental to the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, incidence of incorporation shall not follow; NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VASANTRAO 639 and that not applying the amendments leads to unconstitutionality of the Act. . In Civil Appeal Nos. 6590-6592 of2001, this Court had held that the claimants whose land had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act were entitled to interest on the amount envisaged in Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act.

Hence the sole question for consideration was whether the claimants were also entitled to interest on the sum payable under subsection (I-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. 1 When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they had been bodily transposed into it. The incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. But this must be distinguished from a referential legislation which merely contains a reference or the citation of the provisions of an earlier statute. In a case where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second.

The later Act alongwith the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act constitute an independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Act. However, where in laterAct there is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment of the statute that is referred, will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred. The question whether a former statute is merely referred to or cited in a later statute, or whether it is wholly or p partially incorporated therein, is a question of construction. 1658-B-DI U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishadv. Jainul Islam and Anr. , 1199812 SCC 467; Mary Roy v. State ofKera/a, 11986] 2 SCC 209; Ramsarup v. Munshi, AIR (1963) SC 553; Ram Kripal Bhagat v. State ofBihar; AIR (1976) SC 951; Bo/ant Ores Ltd. v. State ofOrissa, AIR (1975) SC 17 and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd v. Union of India, AIR (1979) SC 798, relied on. SecretGJy of State v.

Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd. , AIR (1931) PC 149 and Jn Re: Wood's Estate, Ex parte, Works and Buildings Commrs. , (1886) 31 Ch D 607, referred to. 1. 2. So far as the U. P. Act is concerned the Land Acquisition Act, as modified, stands incorporated in the U. P. Act. However, as a matter of construction, 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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Nagpur Act, Punjab Act as well as the U. P. Act have a common scheme and pattern. All the three legislations relate to town planning and 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. The modifications made are also similar. There is 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. [668-G-H; 669-A-D[ UP. Avas Evam Vikas Praishadv. Jainul Islam and Anr. , [19981 2 SCC 467, relied on. Bhatinda Improvement Trust v. Ba/want singh and Ors. , [19911 4 SCC 368, distinguished. Gauri Shankar Gaur and Ors. v. State ofUP. and Ors. , [199411 SCC 92, referred to. 1. 3. Though under the Land Acquisition Act as amended in its application to the State of U. P. there was no provision for grant of solatium by the U. P. Act such solatium was provided for.

The intention of the legislature was apparent that it wanted to confer the benefit of solatium by modifying Section 23(2) which benefit was not available under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as it was applicable in the State of U. P. at the time of enactment of the U. P. Act. So far as the Punjab Act and the Nagpur Act are concerned, the schedules do not modify the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act which provides for payment of solatium. However, a proviso was added to the effect that sub-section (2) shall not apply to any land acquired under the State Acts in question. This clearly implies that where acquisition was made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as modified, the legislature did not intend to deprive the claimants of solatium as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. But solatium was not payable in cases of acquisition NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VASANTRAO 641 under the State Acts.

There are provisions in Punjab Act as well as Nagpur Act which permit the State to acquire lands for the purposes of the schemes without resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act such as acquisition by purchase lease exchange or otherwise, or acquisitions contemplated under deferred street scheme, development scheme and expansion scheme. In respect of such acquisitions solatium is not payable. In these circumstances with a view to save the law from the vice of arbitrary and hostile discrimination, the provisions must be construed to mean, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the provisions of the Land acquisition 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 State Acts.

It must, therefore, be held that while incorporating the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the State Acts, the intention of the legislature was that amendments in the Land Acquisition Act relating to determination and payment of compensation would be applicable to acquisition of lands for the purposes of the State Acts. Consequently the claimants are entitled to the benefits conferred by section 23(1-A), if applicable, and section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the 1984 Act for acquisition of land for the purposes of the State Acts under Sections 59 of both the Nagpur and the Punjab Acts. 1669-F-H; 670-A-E] UP. Awas Evas Vikas Parishadv. Jainul Islam and Anr. , 11998] 2 SCC 467, relied on. Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 11986] I SCC 581; Maneklal Chhotelal and Ors. v. MG. Makwana and Ors. , 11967] 3 SCR 65 and State ofGz! )arat v. Shanti/al, Mangaldas and Ors. , 1196911SCC509, distinguished. 2.

It cannot be contended that since under the Punjab Act, Trust is the acquiring authority and not the State, there cannot be allegation of discrimination against it. Since section 17-A is inserted in the Land Acquisition Act by way of modification in all the three State Acts acquiring authority under the State Acts is the Government and not the Trust. 1671-C, DI Om Prakash and Anr. v. State of UP. and Ors. , 11974] I SCC 628, relied on. Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Vithal Rao and Ors. , AIR (1973) SC 689, referred to. 3. Since the Awards of the Collector in the instant cases were made much before 30th April, 1982, the claimants will not be entitled to the benefit of additional amount payable under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and the judgments and orders of the High Court on this aspect of the matter must be set aside. (672-F, GI Union ofIndia and Anr. etc. etc. v. Zora Singh and Ors. etc. etc. , I19921 I SCC 673 and K. S. Paripoornan v. State ofKera/a and Ors.

, 119941 5 SCC 593, referred to. 4. In C. A. Nos. 9260-9261 of 1995 as well, where the appellant has claimed benefit of additional amount payable under section 23(1-A) or the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector had made his Award much before 30th April, 1982 and, therefore, the appellant's claim for additional amount under Section 23(1-A) must be rejected. 1672-G-HJ 5. So far as the acquisition under the Nagpur Act and the U. P. Act are concerned they have been challenged on the ground that the Notification corresponding to the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made more than 3 years after expiry of the date of publication of the Notification corresponding to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

This was on the assumption that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were not incorporated in the State Acts but were merely referred to and the amendment of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition by insertion of proviso thereto by Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act 13of1967), would apply to the acquisitions. Since the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as modified by the State Acts and the Schedule thereto stand incorporated in the State. Acts and therefore, the subsequent amendments of Section 6 by the Act No. 13 of 1967 or by Act 68 of 1984 will have no effect on the acquisition made under the State Acts. 1673-A, CJ 6. In Civil Appeal Nos. 6590 to 6592 of 2001 the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act including all the Sub-sections thereof meaning thereby Sub-sections (I), (I-A) and (2) of Section 23. 1674-CJ Sunder v.

Union of India, 120011 7 sec 211, relied on. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST ~. VASANTRAO [B. P. SINGH. J. ] 643 Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v. National fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. , (1996( 2 SCC 71, referred to CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 1164- 1200 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 16. 10. 1991 of the Mumbai High Court in W. P. Nos. 555 2304, 1592/82, 2367/83, 1983, 1429, 2723/84, 2432, 2707/85. 126, 464, 531, 570/86, 671/88, 726, 727, 749, 840, 849, 955, 1400, 1617, 1764, 1818, 1846, 1893, 1894, 1908, 1942, 2053, 2176, 2187/86, 2674/87, 463/88, 1388/86, 1765 and 1884 of 1986. WITH C. A. Nos. 9209, 9210, 9213, 9214, 9260-9261/95, S. L. P. (C) Nos. 8256-8259/93, C. A. Nos. 839/95, 3789/92, S. L. P. (C) No. 12949/92, 333 I/ 93, C. A. Nos. 9207, 9206195, S. L. P. (C) No. 3210/99, C. A. No. 921 I, 9212, 9208195, 6590, 6591, 6592 of 200 I. Rakesh Dwivedi, V. A. Mohta, Rajinder Sachar, Ujagar Singh, N. N. Goswami, Subodh Markandeya, Ms.

Vimla Sinha, Abhishek Chaudhary, Sunil Kumar Verma, T. Raja, M. K. Dua, Arvind Minocha, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Sunil Kumar Verma, S. C. Patel, V. B. Saharya, K. K. Mohan, Ambrish Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, N. M. Popli, Sanjeev K. Singh, Ms. Vrindha Dhar, A. K. Sanghi, K. C. Jain, Mrs. KawaljitKochar, S. C. Paul, C. L. Basha! , Ms. Sonal Mahajan, J. D. Jain, R. S. Lambat, Uday Umesh Lalit, S. M. Jadhav, Sanjeev Malhotra, Ravindra Bana, S. M. Sarin, P. N. Puri, Devendra Verma, Satish Vig. S. S. Shinde, S. V. Deshpande, P. N. Gupta, Nischal Kumar, Vineet Kumar, Mahabir Singh, R. K. Talwar, Yash Pal Dhingra, Harinder Mohan Singh, Anil Hooda, Ms. lndu Goswamy, Bhargava V. Desai, Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Alok Gupta, Mohan Babu Agarwal, Kamlendra Misra, Ms. Chitra Markandaya and K. C. Jain for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 8. P. SINGH, J.

In this batch of appeals and special leave petitions the common question which arises for consideration is whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 6, 23(2) and 28 thereof stand incorporated in the three State Acts with which we are concerned in these matters or whether the Land Acquisition Act has been merely referred to in the State Acts. If it is held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act stand legislatively incorporated in the State Acts, the subsequent amendments to the Land Acquisition Act will have no effect upon the acquisitions made under the State Acts. We are concerned with three State Acts, namely, The Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Act'); The Nagpur Improvement Trust Act. 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nagpur Act') and The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U. P. Act'). C. A. Nos. 9206 to 9214 of 1995; C. A. Nos.

9260-9261 of 1995; C. A. No. 3789 of 1992; SLP (C) No. 12949/1992; SLP (C) No. 3331 /1993 & SLP (C) No. 3210/1999 relate to acquisitions made under the Punjab Act. C. A. No. 839 of 1995 and C. A. Nos. 6590 to 6292 of 200 I relate to acquisitions under the U. P. Act while C. A. Nos. 1164-2000 of 1993 and SLP (C) Nos. 8256-8259 of 1993 relate to acquisitions made under the Nagpur Act. In the matters arising under the Punjab Act, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the claimants, whose lands were acquired under the Punjab Act were entitled to additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 as also to the solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Th·e Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Union ofIndia and Anr. v. Zora Singh and Ors. , [1992], I sec 673; Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. V. Vithal Rao and Ors.

, AIR (1973) SC 689 as also the full Bench of that Cowt in Harbans Kaur and Ors. v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and Ors. , (1973) P. L. J. 250. In the appeals which relate to the acquisitions under the Nagpur Act, the appellant, namely the Nagpur Improvement Trust, has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), Nagpur, holding that the Land Acquisition Act is merely referred to in the Nagpur Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 6 including the proviso thereto apply to acquisitions under the Nagpur Act. Since the notice under Section 39 of the Nagpur Act corresponding to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was first published in the official gazette on 25th December, 1969 and the subsequent Notification under Section 45 corresponding to the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 18th September, 1974 i. e.

after more than three years, the same deserves to be quashed since the notice published under Section 39 of the Act lapsed on expiry of three years from the date of its publication, and no action pursuant to the said notice could have been taken thereafter. • In Civil Appeal No. 839 of I995 which arises under the U. P. Act, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisitions before it holding that Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was legislatively incorporated in the U. P. Act which was of the year 1965, and that the subsequent amendment of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1967 did not affect the provisions of the U. P. Act including Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as incorporated in the U. P. Act.

It, therefore, rejected the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that acquisition proceedings lapsed on expiry of the period of three years from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 28 of the U. P. Act which corresponds with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court relied upon its Full Bench decision in Doc/ors Sahakari Gram Nirman Samili Lid v. Avas and Vikas Parishad etc. , AIR (1984) Allahabad 234. In Civil Appeal Nos. 6590-6592 of 2001, the sole question is whether the claimants are entitled to interest on the sum payable under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Punjab Act was enacted to make provision for the improvement and expansion of towns in Punjab. The Nagpur Act also makes provisions for the improvement and expansion of the town of Nagpur. The U. P. Act has the same objective but applies to whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh, excluding the Cantonment areas.

All these State Acts incorporate a similar scheme and follow a common pattern. They provide for the constitution of Trust or Board, as the case may be, and also provide for various schemes for the improvement and expansion of the areas covered by the Act. All the three Acts provide for acquisition of land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act subject to the modifications made thereto by the Act and/or the Schedule to the Act. In a nutshell, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are made applicable to the acquisitions made under the State Acts subject to certain modifications as indicated in the Act and/or the Schedule thereto. Before we advert to the submissions urged at the Bar we may briefly notice the scheme under the said A~ts. The Punjab Act provides for the creation and incorporation of Trusts which are charged with the duty of carrying out the provisions of the Act in the local area within their jurisdiction.

Provisions have been made for the constitution of the Trusts and the manner in which the proceedings of the Trusts and their Committees are to be conducted. Chapter IV of the Act deals with the schemes which may be framed under the Act, which include general improvement scheme or rebuilding scheme; street schemes and deferred street schemes ; development and expansion schemes; housing accommodation scheme ; re-housing scheme etc. Under Section 36 of the Act when a Scheme is framed, the Trust shall prepare a notice stating the fact that the scheme has been framed and prescribe the boundaries of the locality comprised in the scheme and furnish requisite particulars. Such a notice is required to be published weekly for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper or newspapers with a statement of the period with in which objections will be received.

Under Section 38, during the thirty days next following the first day on which any notice is published under Section 36 in respect of any scheme under the Act, the Trust is required to serve a notice on every person, whom the Trust has reason to believe, to be the owner of any immovable property which it is proposed to acquire in executing tile scheme and the occupier of such premises. Under Section 41 the State Government may sanction, either with or without modification, or may refuse to sanction, or may return for reconsideration, any scheme submitted to it under Section 40 of the Act. In case scheme is sanctioned by the State Government, Section 42 mandates the State Government to notify the sanction of the scheme under the Act whereafter the Trust shall proceed to execute the scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A notification under sub-section (I) of Section 42 in respect of any scheme is conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned.

Chapter V deals with the powers and duties of the Trust where the scheme has been sanctioned. Chapter VI deals with the acquisition proceedings and the application of the Act to other authorities. Section 56 thereunder enables the State Government to abandon the acquisition of land in certain cases on payment being made of sum to be fixed by the Trust. A Tribunal is constituted under Section 58 for the purpose of performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Trust under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 59 is of considerable significance and is, therefore, reproduced below :- "59.

Modification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - For the purpose of acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the trust (a) the tribunal shall (except for the purposes of section 54 of the said Act) be deemed to be the Court, and the president of the tribunal shall be deemed to be the Judge, under the said Act : (b) the said Act shall be subject to the further modifications indicated in the Schedule to this Act; NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. YASANTRAO (B. P. SINGH. J. ] 647 (c) the president of the tribunal shall have power to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses, and to compel the production of documents by the same means and (so far as may by) in the same manner as is provided. in the case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; and ,. - (d) the award of a tribunal shall be deemed to be the award of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and shall be final".

The Schedule to the Act is also of considerable significance since it seeks to modify the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in its application to acquisitions under the Punjab Act. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule reads as under :- "2. Notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 to be replaced by notification under sections 36 and 42 of this Act. - (I) The first publication of a notice of any improvement scheme under section 36 of this Act shall be substituted for and have the same effect as publication in the Official Gazette and in the locality of notification under sub-section (I) of section 4 of the said Act, except where a declaration under section 4 or section 6 of the said Act has previously been made and is still in force.

(2) Subject to the provisions of clauses 10 and 11 of this Schedule, the issue of a notice under sub-section 32 (I) of section in the case of land acquired under that sub-section and in any other case the publication of a notification under section 42 shall be substituted for and have the same effect as a declaration by the State Government under section 6 of the said Act, unless a declaration under the last mentioned section has previously been made and is still in force". Various clauses of the schedule seek to amend sections 11, )5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 31 & 49 of the Land Acquisition Act. Two new provisions have been inserted, namely Sections 24A and 48A. The rele\(11nt part of paragraphs 6 and 10 of the schedule Which seek to add Sectio. ~ 17-A and ,/ modify Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act are as follows :- "6. Transfer of land to Trust - After section 17 of the said Act, the following shall be deemed to be inserted, namely :- 17-A.

In every case referred to in section 16 or section 17, the Collector shall, upon payment of the cost of acquisition, make . over charge of ihe liinato the trust, and the land shall thereupon vest in the trust subject to the liability of the trust to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of its acquisition". "10. Amendment ofsection 23. - (I) In clause first and clause sixthly of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the said Act, for the words "publication of the declaration relating thereto under section 6" and the w0rds "publication of the declaration under section 6", shall be deemed to be substituted. (a) if the land is being acquired under sub-section (3) of section 32 of this Act the words "issue of the notice under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922," a~d (b) in any other case, the words "first publication of the notification under section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922".

(2) The fullstop at the end of sub-section (2) of section 23 of the said Act 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 Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. ", Section 48A reads as under :- " 48-A. Compensation to be awarded when land not acquired within one year. - (! ) If within a period of one year, from the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 in respect of any land, the Collector has not made an award under section 11 with respect to such land, the owner ofthe land shall, unless he has been to a material extent responsible for the delay, be entitled to receive compensation for the damage suffered by him in consequence of the delay. - (2) The provision of part III of this Act shall apply, so far as it may to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.

" The Nagpur Act, namely - the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, follows the same pattern. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Constitution of the Trust and Chapter Ill deals with the proceedings of the Trust and the Committees. Chapter IV deals with various improvement schemes contemplated by the Act. Section 26 provides that an improvement scheme may provide for all or any of the matters provided therein which includes the acquisition by purchase, exchange, or otherwise of any property necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme; recovery of betterment contributions; the re-laying out of any land comprised in the scheme, the construction and re-construction of buildings; the provisions ofparks, playing- , fields and open spaces etc; sanitary arrangements required for the area; reclamation or reservation of land for market, gardens, afforestation etc. etc.

It also includes any matter for which, in the opinion ofthe State Government, it is expedient to make provision with a view to the improvement of any area in question or the general efficiency of the scheme. Various schemes have been specified such as a general improvement scheme; a re-building scheme; a re-housing scheme; a street scheme; a deferred street scheme; a house accommodation scheme etc. etc. Sections 36 to 47 prescribe the procedure to be followed in framing an improvement scheme. Section 39 provides that when any improvement scheme has been framed, the Trust shall prepare a notice stating the fact that the scheme has been framed; the boundaries of the area comprised in the scheme and such other particulars as are specified in that section.

Under Section 41, during the thirty days next following the first day on which any notice is published under Section 39 in respect of any improvement scheme, the Trust shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the Municipal assessment list of land as owner ofany building or land which it proposed to acquire in executing the scheme or in regard to which it proposed to recover a betterment contripution. The notice shall state that the Trust propose to acquire such land or to recover such betterment contribution for the purposes of carrying out an improvement scheme. The notice shall call upon such person, if he dissents from such acquisition or from the recovery of such betterment contribution, to state his reason in writing within a period of sixty days from service of the notice. The objections are, thereafter, to be considered under Section 43 within the period prescribed.

The objectors are entitled to be heard in the matter ifthey so desire, whereafter the Trust may either abandon the scheme or apply to the State Government for sanction of the scheme with such modification, if any, as the Trust may consider necessary. Thereafter the State Government may sanction either with or without modification, or may refuse to sanction, or may return for reconsideration, any improvement scheme submitted to it under Section 43. Section 45 provides that whenever the State Government sanctions an improvement scheme, it shall announce the fact by notification and the Trust shall forthwith proceed to execute the same. The publication of a notification under sub-section (I) ofSection 45 in respect of any scheme shall be conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. Section 46 authorises the Trust to alter any improvement scheme after the same has been sanctioned subject to the previous sanction of the State Government, if required.

Chapter V of the Act lays down the powers and duties of the Trust where a scheme has been sanctioned. Chapter YI deals with the acquisition and disposal of land. Section 58 provides for acquisition by purchase, lease or exchange by the Trust pursuant to an agreement with the person concerned. Section 59 reads as follows :- "59. The Trust may, with the previous sanction of the State Government acquire, land under the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified by the provisions of this Act, for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act. " Section 60 provides for the constitution of Tribunal for the purposes of performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Trust, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 61 reads as under :- "61.

For the purpose of acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Trust, - (a) the Tribunal shall except for the purposes of section 54 of that Act, be deemed to be the Court, and the President ofthe Tribunal shall be deemed to be the Judge thereunder ; (b) the Act shall be subject to the further modifications as indicated in the Schedule ; (c) the President of the Tribunal may summon witnesses and enforce their attendance and may compel the production of documents by the same means, and so far as may be, in the same manner, as is provided in case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; and (d) the award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the award of the Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and shall be final". It is not necessary to refer to other provisions of the Act. However, the Schedule to the Act provides for fm1her modification ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the Schedule are significant and they are reproduced below:- "2. (1) The first publication of a notice of an improvement scheme under section 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, shall be substituted for, and have the same effect as publication in the official Gazette and in the locality of, a notification under sub-section (I) of section 4, except where a declaration under section 4 or section 6 has previously been made and is still in force. ..

(2) Subject to the provisions of clauses I0 and 11 of this Schedule, the issue of notice under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act 1936, in the case of land acquired under that sub-section, and in any other case the publication of a notification under section 45 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, shall be substituted for, and have the same effect as a declaration by the • State Government under section 6, unless a declaration under the last mentioned section has previously been made and is in force.

(3) The full stop at the end of section 11 shall be deemed to be changed to a semi-colon, and the following shall be deemed to be added, namely:- "and (iv) the costs which, in his opinion, should be allowed to any person who is found to be entitled to compensation, and who is not entitled to receive the additional sum of fifteen per centum mentioned in subsection (2) of section 23 as having been actually and reasonably incurred by such person in preparing his claim and putting his case before the Collector. The Collector may disallow, wholly or in part, costs incurred by any person, if he considers that the claim made by such person for p compensation is extravagant. " The Schedule further amends Sections 15, 17, 18, I9, 20, 23, 24 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The schedule inserts two new provisions, namely Section 24-A and Section 48-A. Section 17-A which has been added by clause 6 of the Schedule reads as under:- "6.

After section 17, the following section shall be deemed to be inserted, namely :- 17-A. In every case referred to in section 16 or section 17, the Collector shall, upon payment of the cost of acquisition, make over charge of the land to the Trust and the land shall thereupon vest in the Trust, subject to the liability of the Trust to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of its acquisition. '' Clause 10 of the schedule which effects several modifications in Section 23 of the Land A. cqui:&,jtion Act, modifies sub-section (2) thereof as follows:- -.. "(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 (a) buildings in the actual occupation of the owner or occupied free of rent by a relative of the owner, and land appurtenant thereto, and (b) gardens not let to tenants but used by the owners as a place of resort. " Similar is the scheme under the U. P. Act which has been noticed by this Court in UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Anr. , [1998] 2 sec 467. 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 those Acts. There is also a striking similarity between schedules 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 Land Acquisition Act, and adds a new section 17-A which is identical to Section 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 Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Rajinder Sachar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Jalandhar Improvement Trust in Civil Appeal No. 9206 of 1995 submitted that a careful analysis of the scheme of the Punjab Act would disclose that ""' NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST v. VASANTRAO [B. P. SINGH, J. J 653 the scheme of the Punjab Act is quite different from the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act.

Different equities arose under the two Acts and, therefore, the High Cou1t was not j_ustified in holding that even in respect of the acquisition under the Punjab Act, the claimants were entitled to the benefit of beneficial provisions under the Land Acquisition Act as brought in by amending the Land Acquisition Act by Act No. 68 of 1984. He sought to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the respondents and submitted that having regard to the principle laid down by this Court in Maneklal Chhotalal and Ors. v. MG. Makwana and Ors. , (1967] 3 SCR 65 and State ofGujarat v. Shanti/al Mangaldas and Ors. , (1969] 1 SCC 509, it must be held that compensation was not justiciable and since the two legislations were under two different entries of the Constitution, Article 14 could not be invoked. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Nagpur Improvement Trust in C. A~ Nos. 1164-1200 of 1993 and the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in Civil Appeal No.

839 of 1995 submitted that the provisions of the Nagpur and the U. P. Act and the modifications brought about by these Acts leave no room for doubt that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act stood incorporated by legislation in the State Acts and, therefore, it cannot be said,that the legislature intended that subsequent """"(' amendments in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should apply to an acquisition under the said Act. He further submitted that this Court in Bhatinda Improvement Trust v. Ba/want Singh and Ors. , (1991] 4 SCC 368 overlooked a judgment of this Court in State ofKera/a and Ors v. T. M. Peter and Ors. , [1980] 3 SCC 554 and erroneously came to the conclusion that there was no question of incorporation of any of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into the Punjab Act.

A perusal of the provisions of the Nagpur Act would show that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as it stood in 1936 stand incorporated by reference in the 1936 Act subject to the modifications indicated therein. The Nagpur Act is a complete and exhaustive code enacted with the object of providing for improvement and expansion of the town of Nagpur. The Act also contemplates under . , Section 58 acquisition by agreement while Sections 59 to 68 deal with compulsory acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as modified by the provisions of the Nagpur Act. The Nagpur Act has its own exhaustive mechanism and procedure for acquisition of land and further it ""1 adopts provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as it stood in 1936 with -- of the Notification corresponding to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

This was on the assumption that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were not incorporated in the State Acts but were merely referred to and the amendment of Section 6 of the Land Acquisitidn by insertion of proviso thereto by Act 13of1967, would apply to the acquisitions. We have already held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as modified by the State Acts and the Schedule thereto stand incorporated in the State Acts and, therefore, the subsequent amendments of Section 6 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act No. 13 of 1967) or by Act 68 of 1984, will have no effect on the acquisition made under the State Acts. The High Court of Allahabad has taken this view while the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur has taken the contrary view.

The appeals, therefore, which are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad must be dismissed and those against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, must be allowed. Since we have held that the Land Acquisition Act stands incorporated in the State Acts, with the consequence that subsequent amendments to the Land Acquisition Act have no effect upon the acquisitions made under the State Acts, it is not necessary to consider the submission of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocate, that in view of the judgment of this Court in T. M Peter's case (supra), the absence of any time limit in the State Acts for issuance of Notification corresponding to the declaration under 6 of the Land Acquisition Act will not expose the State Acts to the charge of discrimination invoking the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. In the result C. A. Nos.

9206 to 9214of1995 are partly allowed and the direction contained in the judgments and orders impugned to the effect that the claimants shall be entitled to the benefit of additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act is set aside. However, the impugned judgments and orders are affirmed in all other respects. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3210 of 1999 is dismissed. Civil Appeal Nos. 9260-9261 of 1995 in which the appellants have claimed additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act are dismissed since in all these cases the Collector pronounced his Award much prior to 30th April, 1982. Civil Appeal Nos. 3789 of 1992 and 8. 39 of 1995 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 12949 of 1992 and 3331 of 1993 are dismissed. Civil Appeal Nos.

6590 to 6592 of 2001 were partly allowed by this Court by order dated September 19, 2001 in so far as the claim for interest on the enhanced solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is co! 1cerned. Their claim to interest on the sum payable under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act must also be allowed in view of the judgment of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). Accordingly these appeals are allowed and it is held that the claimants are also 'entitled to interest on the amount payable to them under sub-section (I- A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents are directed to compute and pay the interest payable to the appellants in accordance with law as enunciated in Sunder v. Union of India, (supra). Civil Appeal Nos. 1164-1200 of 1993 and SLP (C) Nos. 8256-8259 of 1993 are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court in all the appeals are set aside.

The appellants shall now proceed with the acquisition in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. K. K. T. Appeals/Petitions dismissed. ..