Court holds that Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 read with repealed 1894 Act causes discriminatory compensation; mandates parity with 2013 Act to ensure constitutional compliance under Articles 14 and 300A
In a landmark judgment dated August 6, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench, Division Bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla) ruled on a batch of Public Interest Litigations and writ petitions challenging the land acquisition procedures undertaken by the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (Housing and Development Board) under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 ("Adhiniyam, 1965").
The petitions contended that compulsory land acquisition carried out under the Adhiniyam, 1965, which references the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act, 1894"), violates constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14) and property rights (Article 300A) since compensation and rehabilitation provisions under the newer Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act, 2013") were not applied. They argued that this resulted in arbitrary and hostile discrimination between landowners whose lands were acquired under different laws within the same district of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.
The Board and State respondents defended their position, asserting that the Adhiniyam, 1965 is a development statute primarily relatable to Entries 5 and 18 of the State List under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and thus repugnancy with the Act, 2013 (a Concurrent List legislation) does not arise. They also claimed that monetary compensation was being paid as per the 2013 Act, negating any discrimination claim.
The High Court undertook a detailed and nuanced examination of the legislative schemes, constitutional provisions, and relevant Supreme Court precedents. It held that:
1. The Adhiniyam, 1965 is primarily a development and housing statute, not a land acquisition law per se. Acquisition powers under it are incidental and delegated to the Board, a state instrumentality. The acquisition provisions are therefore relatable in pith and substance to Entries 5 and 18 of the State List, not Entry 42 of the Concurrent List, negating repugnancy under Article 254.
2. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, though repealed by the Act, 2013, was incorporated by reference into the Adhiniyam, 1965 through Section 55 and its Schedule. The repeal of the Act, 1894 by the Act, 2013 does not automatically affect its application to acquisition proceedings under the Adhiniyam, 1965, except where non-application would render the acquisition provisions unconstitutional due to arbitrary discrimination.
3. Compensation for land acquisition includes not only monetary payment but also non-monetary restitution such as rehabilitation and resettlement, as recognized under the Act, 2013 and supported by constitutional jurisprudence including recent Supreme Court pronouncements (e.g., Kolkata Municipal Corporation case).
4. The Adhiniyam, 1965 read with the Act, 1894 provides for lesser compensation and lacks adequate rehabilitation provisions compared to the Act, 2013. Such differential treatment between landowners whose lands are acquired under different laws violates Article 14 and Article 300A, as landowners form a single class entitled to equal treatment in compensation.
5. To avoid declaring Section 55 and the acquisition provisions under the Adhiniyam, 1965 unconstitutional, the Court directed that the compensation (monetary and non-monetary) and rehabilitation benefits under the Act, 2013 or at least the principles thereof must be applied in all land acquisitions under the Adhiniyam, 1965.
6. The Court declined to quash the ongoing schemes or acquisition notifications given the public interest and progress made but ordered that monetary compensation already paid or awarded be revisited and aligned with the Act, 2013. It further directed the Board to frame and implement rehabilitation schemes for displaced landowners within six months, applying the provisions of the Act, 2013.
7. The Court reaffirmed that the Board acts as an instrumentality of the State, and therefore constitutional mandates apply to its acquisition actions.
8. The petitions, including the Public Interest Litigation filed by Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti on behalf of affected landowners, were held maintainable as bona fide public interest matters addressing fundamental constitutional rights of vulnerable landowners unable to litigate individually.
This ruling thus mandates parity in compensation and rehabilitation for landowners affected by compulsory acquisition under the Adhiniyam, 1965 with those covered under the Act, 2013, ensuring compliance with constitutional equality and property rights. It recognizes rehabilitation and resettlement as integral to fair compensation and directs implementation of more humane and equitable acquisition practices in Uttar Pradesh's urban development initiatives.
Bottom Line:
Application of compensation and rehabilitation provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquisitions under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 to ensure compliance with Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 Sections 21, 28, 31, 32, 55; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 3, 4, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 103, 114; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 3, 11, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28; Constitution of India Articles 14, 19, 21, 254, 300A
