Limitation under Land Acquisition Act held inapplicable to U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad acquisition proceedings under the local statute.

The Supreme Court held that the three-year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not apply to acquisition proceedings under Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. Section 55 and the Schedule were treated as incorporating only the relevant acquisition machinery with modifications, creating a self-contained procedure in which the Adhiniyam's notices replaced the general Act's Section 4 and Section 6 notifications. Later amendments to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act did not automatically apply to the incorporated local statute, and Article 254(2) did not invalidate the State enactment. The challenge to the acquisition on limitation grounds therefore failed, though compensation was directed on the market value prevailing in the year of the analogous declaration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the three-year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 28 and sanctioned under Section 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.

Analysis: Section 55 of the Adhiniyam, read with the Schedule, did not merely refer generally to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but incorporated the relevant acquisition machinery with modifications. The scheme under Sections 28 and 32 operated as a self-contained procedure, and the Schedule substituted the notices under the Adhiniyam for the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The later amendments to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not automatically enter the incorporated local statute. The Court also held that Article 254(2) did not render the State enactment void, because the Adhiniyam was not in the same field as acquisition simpliciter and could coexist with the general acquisition law.

Conclusion: The three-year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was held inapplicable to proceedings under the Adhiniyam, and the challenge to the acquisition on that ground failed. Relief was nevertheless moulded by directing compensation on the market value prevailing in the year of the declaration analogous to Section 6.

---