eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10.20... Page 76 of 197http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do10/21/20119.Vesting: Whether after taking possession under section 17(1) of the Act the challenge to the notifications undersection 4 read with 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 cannot be entertained due to the reason that land which hasalready been vested in the State cannot be divested?10.Section 11A: Whether acquisition under challenge has lapsed under section 11A of the Act due to nondeclaration of the award within two years from the date of publication of the declaration made under section 6?11.Section 17(3A): Whether non payment of 80% of the compensation as required by Section 17(3A) of the LandAcquisition Act is fatal to the acquisition proceedings?12.Waiver: Whether the petitioners who have accepted compensation by agreement have waived their right tochallenge the acquisition proceedings?13.Acquiescence: Whether the petitioners due to having accepted the compensation by agreement haveacquiesced to the proceedings of land acquisition and they are estopped from challenging the acquisitionproceedings at this stage?14.Third Party Rights, Development & Constructions: Whether due to creation of third party rights, developmentcarried out by the Authority and developments & constructions made by the allottees on the acquired landsubsequent to the acquisition, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of quashing the notifications underSections 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) and Section 6 of the Act?15.Effect of Upholding of some of the notifications in some writ petitions earlier decided: What are theconsequences and effect of earlier Division Bench judgment upholding several notifications which are subjectmatter of challenge in some of these writ petitions?16.Conflicts in views of Division Benchs: Which of the Division Bench decisions i.e. Harkaran Singh's caseholding that invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) was invalid or earlier Division Bench judgment in HarishChand's case holding that invocation of section 17(1) and 17(4) was in accordance with law, has to be approved?17.Relief: To what relief, if any, the petitioners are entitled in these writ petitions?1. Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act:Under Constitutional scheme, distribution of legislative powers is provided in Chapter I Part XI of the Constitutionof India. According to Article 246 (3) subject to clauses (1) and (2), the Legislature of any State has exclusivepower to make laws for such State or any part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II inthe Seventh Schedule. Before enforcement of the Constitution, the provincial Legislature has enacted severalenactments for regulation of municipalities and town. U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and U.P. Town ImprovementAct, 1919 were two legislations in that regard with object of providing municipal services and improvement oftowns in the State. In our State, U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958 was also an enactmentregulating building operations then thereafter came a comprehensive Act namely; U.P. Urban Planning andDevelopment Act,1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''1973 Act') to provide for development of certain areas of U.P.according to plans and the matters ancillary thereto. The Act provided for declaration of an area as developmentarea within the State which requires to be developed according to plan. Section 4 of the 1973 Act provided forconstituting an Authority for the development area. The Act provided for preparation of Master Plan and ZonalDevelopment Plan and development of land according to such plan. The State Legislature thereafter enacted theU.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 to provide for constitution of authority for development of certainareas in the State into Industrial and Urban Township. Section 3 provided for constitution of the Authority for anyindustrial development area. Section 6 provided for functions of the authority. Section 12 made applicable certainprovisions of the 1973 Act. Section 17 gave overriding effect to the provisions of the 1976 Act. The purpose forenactment of 1976 Act is to be found out from the scheme of the Act. The preamble of a Statute is a part of theAct and it is admissible aid to construction as said by Chief Justice Dyer in Stowel v Lord Zouch, (1569) 1 Plowd353 preamble is a " key to open the minds of the makers of the Act, and the mischief's which they intended toredress....." The preamble of the Act is as follows:"An Act to provide for the constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in the State intoindustrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith."As noted above in the State of U.P. a comprehensive enactment i.e. 1973 Act was already enacted for