Supreme Court of India
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Kanak And Anr. on 24 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2003(96)FLR492], JT2002(2)SC485, (2003)ILLJ497SC, (2002)2UPLBEC1125, AIRONLINE 2002 SC 98, (2002) 2 LACC 15, (2003) 1 LAB LN 834, (2002) 47 ALL LR 229, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1125, (2002) 2 ALL WC 1208, (2003) 96 FAC LR 492, (2003) 1 LAB LJ 497, (2002) 2 JT 485, 2003 LAB LR 1, (2002) 7 SUPREME 401, 2002 ALL CJ 1 453, (2002) 2 JT 485 (SC)
Bench: V.N. Khare, Ashok Bhan
ORDER
1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the board) was established and constituted under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). The Municipal Corporation of Agra, issued a notification on 23.4.1960 under Section 357 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') proposing to acquire a large tract of land for an improvement scheme. Subsequently, a notification under Section 363 of the Adhiniyam was issued on 29.6.1964. It is alleged that after the Act came into force, the improvement scheme finalised by the Agra Corporation was transferred to the board under Section 47 of the Act. It is further alleged that on 18.6.1971, possession of the land was taken by the board without any award. Subsequently, on 24.11.1972, the award was given in respect of the acquired land by the special land acquisition officer. On 31.12.1972, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court by judgment dated 24.3.1989 enhanced the compensation. Thereafter, the board applied before the tribunal for grant of certificate to fife an appeal before the High Court under Section 381 of the Adhiniyam. It is not disputed that the certificate sought for was given by the tribunal. The board accordingly preferred an appeal before the High Court. However, the board did not deposit the decretal amount as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 381 of the Adhiniyam.
2. When the first appeal came up before the High Court, the High Court after having found that the appellant had not deposited the decretal amount as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 381, dismissed the appeal. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition.
3. When the matter was taken up, it was brought to our notice by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that against the enhanced compensation arising out of the same scheme, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed on account of having not deposited the decretal amount as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 381 of the Adhiniyam and a special leave petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by this Court and the view taken by the High Court was affirmed.
4. After we heard the matter, we are of the view that merely because the improvement scheme finalised under the Adhiniyam was transferred to the board and, therefore, the provisions of Adhiniyam would not apply as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant has no substance. It is not disputed that the acquisition of land in the present case was made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as modified by the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the transfer of the scheme to the board after completion of acquisition would not affect the right to the appeal under Section 381 of the Adhiniyam. The second contention that the appeal ought not have been dismissed merely because the decretal amount was not deposited prior to filing of the appeal, has also no merit. Section 381 (3) reads as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, no appeal shall lie under this section unless the appellant has deposited the money which he is liable to pay under the order from which the appeal is filed."
5. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the deposit of money which is due to a claimant under an appeal is a condition precedent to the maintainability of appeal before the High Court. It is not disputed that the money due under the order and judgment challenged in the first appeal was not deposited. In that view of the matter, the High Court was justified in dismissing the first appeal.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that this appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.