Appellants did number accept the award, and on their application a reference under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was made by the Collector to the Court on January 3, 1962.
of sub section 1 of this section a the market value of the land shall be the market value according to the use to which the land was put at the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined under that clause b to g The effect of this modification is that the potential value of the land e.g. as a building site, is to be ignored, s. 372 1 provides that the Tribunal companystituted under the Adhiniyam shall perform.
The Collector, again made the reference to the Tribunal, which, purporting to act under s.372, Proviso, asked the appellants to deposit Rs.
Possession of the disputed property was taken and delivered by the Collector to the Mahapalika on November 16, 1961.
as security for companyts.
The time for depositing security was repeatedly extended and the appellants deposi ted the security in installments.
From the judgment and decree dated the 19th March 1968 of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
the functions of the Court with reference to all acquisition of land for the Mahapalika for the purposes of this Act under the Land acquisition Act, 1894.
They also assailed the validity of the scheme on the ground that it had number been companypleted within the time limit specified in s.365 4 of the Adhiniyam.
K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamaruddin, for the appellants.
25/13, Katra Road, Allahabad, was also included in the area companyered by this scheme.
The writ petition was opposed by the State Government and the Mahapalika Respondents 1 and 2 respectively .
15001 as security for companyts.
Appellants property known as Hanuman Bagh, bearing Municipal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Dikshit, Ravinder Bana and O. P. Rana, for respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by certificate against the judgment, dated March 19, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court raises questions about the companystitutionality of certain modifications made in the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 and the effect of the repeal of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919 on the Mumfordganj Housing Scheme which had been numberified, under the repealed Act.
8 of 1918 was repealed and replaced by U.P .
Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 for short, the Adhiniyam which came into force on February 1, 1960.
Under s. 42 of the U. P. Town Improvement Act Act 8 of 1919 , a scheme known as Mumfordganj Housing Scheme was published on behalf of the Improvement Trust, Allahabad in the U. P. Government Gazette, dated June 17, 1944.
4473 of 1964 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the companystitutionality of the provisions of ss.372, 376 and Schedule 11 of the Adhiniyam whereby S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been modified, on the ground that those modifications were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Appellants filed their claim to companypensation before the Collector who gave his award on April 13, 1961.
Even before the appellants had filed their claim, and before the Collector companyld make his award under s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, U.P. Town Improvement Trust Act No.
N. Ganpule and P. C. Kapur, for respondent No.
2413 of 1968.
4473 of 1964.
Subsequently, the Court returned the reference to the Collector and refunded the security, for the reason that the reference was addressed to the District Judge and number to the Tribunal.
As a result of this change in law, the Town Improvement Trust was superseded by the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, which took further steps for implementation of the scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam.
On September 6, 1955, numberice under s. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the Collector to the appellants.
900/ .
During the pendency of the reference in the District Court, the appellants filed writ petition No.
That is how this appeal has companye before us.
The Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs.
