H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) A Scheme known as Sikandara Grihsthan Evam Sarak Yojna, Agra was notified under Section 28(1) of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) on 4th April, 1970. In due course the said notification was followed by a notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam published in the U. P. Gazette dated 28th June, 1980.
(2.) The two petitioners, namely Doctors' Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and Ram Babu Gupta filed the present petition on 30th April. 1981 and questioned the authority of the Board constituted under the Adhiniyam to, in pursuance of the aforesaid notification, acquire their rights in respect of certain Bhumidhari plots mentioned in paragraph '2' of the petition. They submitted that in view of Section 55 of the Adhiniyam. which lays down that any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh which for this purpose shall be subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule to this Act, it was not open to the State Government to issue the notification under Section 32 (1) of the Adhiniyam after a lapse of more than three years of the notification dated 4th of April, 1970 issued under Section 28 (1) of the Adhiniyam.
(3.) The Bench before which the petition was presented felt that the aforesaid submission made bv the petitioners stood concluded against them by the two Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of of Khadim Husain v. State of U. P. (1973 Ali LJ 18) : (AIR 1973 All 132) and Bharat Sewak Samaj Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti Ltd. Varanasi v. State of U. P. (1981 All LJ 409) which purported to rule that the limitation of the three years provided in the Land Acquisition Act for issuance of notification under Section 6 thereof was not applicable in cases where the land was sought to be acquired in pursuance of a scheme framed under the Adhiniyam. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that if the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the two Benches with regard to the effect of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Adhiniyam be taken to be correct the said provision would suffer from the vice of discrimination forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution and the provisions contained in the Adhiniyam with regard to acquisition of land would be rendered unconstitutional. Consequently, even for purposes of the scheme framed under the Adhiniyam, it will not be possible to acquire the land except by strictly complying with the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act. In support of the submission that in such circumstances, the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Adhiniyam would suffer from the vice of discrimination, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, West Madras (AIR 1965 SC 1017) and Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao (AIR 1973 SC 689). As the Bench felt that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserved detailed consideration, it admitted the petition and called upon the respondents to put in appearance in the case.;