SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the applicants assisted by Sri Krishna Agrawal and Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents assisted by Sri L.K. Singh and Sri Shiv Nath Singh. On the basis of a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') readwith section 17(1) of the Act issued on 17.8.1998, acquisition was initiated and thereafter concluded on 18.2.1999 by the issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Act. The award was thereafter made under section 11 of the Act on 10.3.2000.
(2.) The applicants in the instant Revision, who were the beneficiaries and wanted to get the rate of payment made in the award reduced, filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.30155 of 2001 (Union of India and Anr. Vs. The A.D.M. (L.A.), Kanpur Nagar and Ors.). The writ Court on 16.8.2007 relying upon the U.P. Act No.22 of 1954 directed the petitioners therein to file a Reference under the Act. When the Reference was filed in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the Reference Court rejected the same saying that since the amount of compensation awarded could not be lessened, the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11 of the Act could not, therefore, be reduced in the Reference.
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that since the U.P. Amendment 18 had provided for the filing of the Reference, the same was definitely maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when there was an order of the writ Court, then the Reference Court was bound by it. Learned counsel also relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath reported in (2011) 2 SCC 54, submitted that where there was a wrong, there ought to be a remedy and submitted that the Reference Court could lessen the compensation awarded to the claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants, however, submitted that the amendment by the Parliament in section 25 of the Act, would have an overriding effect over the State Amendment. In this regard, he referred to Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which is being reproduced below :- "254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States : (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.". ;