Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th October, 1964
K. SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
N. B. Jeejeebhoy, Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Collector, Thana Prant, Thana, Respondent.
1. Jehangir Ratanji Dadabhoy Tata, 2. Dorab Ratanji Dadabhoy Tata, 3. Mr. K. H. Cama and 4. Mr. N. J. Gamadia, Interveners.
Civil Appeals Nos. 775 and 776 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s. J. C. Bhat and R. P. Bhat, Advocates and Mr. R. A. Gagrat, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co. for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with them), for Respondent; Mr. N. A. Palkhivala, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. A. Gagrat, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co. with him, for Interveners Nos. 1 and 2 ; Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate, M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocates with him), for Interveners Nos. 3 and 4.
LAND ACQUISITION - BOMBAY AMENDMENT ACT, 1948 - VALIDITY - COMPENSATION - S. 299, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - ART. 31(2), 31(5)(A), 31-A, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The Bombay Amendment Act, 1948, amended the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to provide for the acquisition of lands for housing schemes at a compensation rate determined as of January 1, 1948, or the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, whichever was less. The appellant, whose land was acquired under the amended Act, challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 31-A.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Bombay Amendment Act, 1948, was void as it contravened the provisions of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which required that any law authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land must provide for the payment of compensation. The Court interpreted the term "compensation" in Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Article 31(2) of the Constitution to mean "just equivalent" of what the owner has been deprived of. The Court further held that the Act could not be saved under Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution as it was not an "existing law" at the commencement of the Constitution. The Court also held that Article 31-A of the Constitution did not save the Act as it did not purport to revive laws that were void at the time they were made.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bombay Amendment Act, 1948, was void for contravening Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935? 2. Whether the Act could be saved under Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Act was saved by Article 31-A of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Bombay Amendment Act, 1948, was void as it contravened the provisions of Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which required that any law authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land must provide for the payment of compensation. The Court interpreted the term "compensation" in Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Article 31(2) of the Constitution to mean "just equivalent" of what the owner has been deprived of. 2. The Court held that the Act could not be saved under Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution as it was not an "existing law" at the commencement of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that Article 31-A of the Constitution did not save the Act as it did not purport to revive laws that were void at the time they were made.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Bombay Amendment Act, 1948, was void and could not be saved under Articles 31(5)(a) or 31-A of the Constitution.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. :
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay modifying those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, in a reference arising out of land acquisition proceedings.
2. On May 28, 1948, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying that certain lands belonging to the appellant, along with lands belonging to others, were likely to be needed for the Government Housing Scheme, a public purpose. Notifications under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on July 14, 1949, August 1, 1949 and August 11, 1949. On December 31, 1949, possession of the lands so notified was taken under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into six groups based upon certain criteria. Some of the lands of the appellant fell in group Nos. 4 and 5, and his khajan lands fell in group No. 6. He valued the khajan lands at Rs. 500 / - per acre, i.e., at anna 1 pies 74 per sq. yard, and the lands in group No. 4 at Rs. 1-6-0 per sq. yard, and those in group No. 4 at Rs.1-4-0 per sq. yard. Though the appellant claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 44,02,858-8-0 as compensation for the land and Rs. 10,696-14-0 as loss of assessment, the said Officer awarded a total amount of Rs.1,31,096-4-0 as compensation. The appellant filed an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the District Court questioning the correctness of the compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. His reference was numbered as Reference No. 55 of 1953. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, heard that reference along with others made at the instance of different claimants and gave his award on November 30, 1953. The learned Civil Judge increased the compensation in respect of the khajan lands from 1 anna and 7 1/2 pies per sq. yard to as. -/8/- per sq. yard, and in respect of lands in groups 4 and 5 he increased the compensation by as. -/2/- per sq. yard; in the result, he awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,97,676-15-0 instead of Rs.1,31,096-4-0 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The point to be noticed is that the learned Civil Judge valued the lands as on January 1, 1948, though the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on May 28, 1948, as under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948 (Bombay Act IV of 1948) hereinafter called the Amending Act, the former date was the crucial date for awarding compensation. He further did not award the additional 15 per cent of the market value of the lands as solatium for compulsory acquisition, as under the Amending Act, unlike under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no solatium was provided for. Both the appellant and the respondent preferred appeals to the High Court against the said award, the appeal filed by the appellant being First Appeal No. 611 of 1954 and that filed by the respondent being First Appeal No. 318 of 1954. The High Court heard the said appeals along with the appeals filed by other claimants and delivered a common judgment on March 26, 1958. The High Court held that though the Act was hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, it was saved by Art. 31-A thereof and that under S. 229 of the Government of India Act, l935, which governed the statute the compensation for compulsory acquisition did not necessarily mean equivalent in value to the owner of what he had been deprived and, therefore, the Amending Act was valid. In the result, it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent by restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the khajan lands and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence the appeals.
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Bhat for the appellant, Mr. Palkhivala for the interveners, the Attorney-General for the respondents and the counsel representing the Advocates-General of some of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
