Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not ultra vires the second proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution of India, and the inordinate delay in the completion of award proceedings resulting in delayed payment of compensation vitiates the acquisition proceedings.

( 1 ) AS the two questions of law that arise for consideration arc common to all these writ appeals and petitions, the parties have invited us to hear and dispose them off together. In fact some of the counsel adopted the arguments addressed by the others in this regard.

( 2 ) DEALING with the case of compulsory acquisition of land under a notification dated 4-7-1968 issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act in which the award was made on 6-7-1982 our learned brother P. A, choudary struck down Sec. 23 (1) of the Act in so far as it directs the determination of the compensation on the basil of the market value of the land as on the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) holding it to be ultra vires of second proviso of Art. 31-A (1) of the Constitution of India. The two qustions are : (1) Whether Sec. 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act which directs the determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act offends the second proviso to Article 31-A of the constitution and therefore void and Article 31-A (I) of the constitution obliges the payments to calculate the market value preveailing on the date of payment of compensation ? (2) Whether the inordinate delay in the completion of award proceedings after publication of the Notification under Sec. 4 (1) resulting in delayed payment of compensation vitiates the acquisition proceedings and are liable to be quashed ?

( 3 ) OUR learned brother. P. A. Choudary, J disposing of WP No. 6491/79, out of which W. A. Nos. 393/82 and 1085/82 arise, held that Sec. 23 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 in so far as it directs the compensation to be determined as per the market value prevailing on the date of the notification published under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act to bo void as being ultra vires the second proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution and that in view of the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution, the compensation has to be calculated as per the maket value prevailing on the date of payment of the compensation. In that view of the matter, he quashed the acquisition without going into the other questions arising in the writ petition.

( 4 ) SOME of the counsel appearing for the writ petitioners preferred to support the second point referred to above than to support the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the first point. Some others did not address any argumention the first point and rest content with the quashing of the acquisition proceedings on the second point.

( 5 ) POINT No. 1:the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for compulsory acquisition of lands and initiation of proceedings by the publi cation of a notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act, lays down that compensation payable shall be determined after notice to the persons intereited and enquiry. The compensation is required to be determined having regard to sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Sec. 23 (1) directs that the market value of the land prevailing on the date of the notification shall be ascertained and bo payable with 15% solatium and with interest from the dato of taking possession of the land acquired upto the date of payment of compensation so determined. The learned Single Judge has held that market value prevailing not on the date of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act but the market value as on the date of the payment has to be determined and that alone would be compensation as envisaged by the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution. In view of the time lag between the date of the notification under Sec. 4 (I) of the Act and the date of the award and the payment of compensation on account of the depreciation in the purchasing power of the rupee, the person whose property is acquired would not get the real market value by way of compensation as envisaged by the second proviso to Article 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document