Special acquisition statute compensation rules extended to 1984 Land Acquisition Act amendments; market value assessment with development deduction upheld.

Section 55 read with the Schedule to the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 incorporated the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation framework for housing development acquisitions, and the 1984 amendments on additional amount, solatium and interest were treated as applicable to such acquisitions to avoid unequal compensation and Article 14 difficulty. The Court also upheld the High Court's valuation of the acquired land at Rs. 73 per sq. yard, accepting the use of comparable sale instances and a one-third deduction for development on a large undeveloped tract adjoining developed areas. The construction of the special acquisition scheme and the market-value assessment were both affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amendments introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 relating to additional amount, solatium and interest applied to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 under Section 55 read with the Schedule to that Adhiniyam. (ii) Whether the market value of the acquired land was correctly assessed at Rs. 73 per sq. yard after applying a one-third deduction for development.

Issue (i): Whether the amendments introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 relating to additional amount, solatium and interest applied to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 under Section 55 read with the Schedule to that Adhiniyam.

Analysis: Section 55 of the Adhiniyam read with the Schedule incorporated the acquisition provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with modifications. The scheme of the Adhiniyam showed that the acquisition machinery was adopted for the special statutory purpose of housing development and that the incorporated provisions were intended to operate as part of the Adhiniyam. If the pre-1984 regime alone were applied, landowners whose lands were acquired for the Adhiniyam would receive lesser compensation than landowners whose lands were acquired under the amended Land Acquisition Act, although acquisition was through the same State authority. Such a construction would create arbitrary discrimination in compensation. To avoid that consequence, the amendments concerning determination and payment of compensation had to be treated as applicable to acquisitions under Section 55.

Conclusion: The amendments introduced by the 1984 Act in Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applied to acquisitions made for the purposes of the Adhiniyam, and the challenge based on Article 14 did not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether the market value of the acquired land was correctly assessed at Rs. 73 per sq. yard after applying a one-third deduction for development.

Analysis: The acquired land was a large tract adjoining developed areas but itself remained undeveloped. The High Court relied on comparable sales, rejected unreliable additional material, assessed the base rate at Rs. 110 per sq. yard on the strength of a relevant exemplar, and then applied a one-third deduction towards development charges. The deduction was consistent with settled principles governing valuation of large undeveloped acquisitions based on sale instances of smaller developed plots.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the High Court was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The construction placed on Section 55 of the Adhiniyam made the compensation amendments under the 1984 Act applicable, the constitutional challenge failed, and the assessment of market value was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special acquisition statute incorporates the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compensation purposes, the incorporated scheme must be construed to avoid discriminatory compensation, and amendments enhancing compensation apply if that construction best preserves equality and the statutory purpose.

---