The second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution guarantees protection to the holder of land within the ceiling limit against acquisition of that portion of his land except on payment of the market value of right of property on a person holding the land under his personal cultivation.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are brothers. They have filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, to quash the notification D/- 5-12-1977 acquiring a land of an extent of Ac. 11-20 cents in Survey No. 765 in the village of Peddagopathi, Khammam Taluq Khammam District, under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Nagarjunasagar Project (Acquisition of Land) Act (Act XXXII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as "nagarjunasagar Act" ). The petitioners case is that these lands belonged to their family but were partitioned between the members of the family. The petitioners are personally cultivating the lands. The lands held by each of the petitioners along with other lands owned by them are within the ceiling limit prescribed under the provisions of the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act (Act 1 of 1973 ). The Nagarjunasagar Act provided for acquisition of land for any purpose connected with the Narajunasagar Project. The acquisition is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act subject to certain modifications. One of the modifications made to the Land Acquisition Act is the substitution of the following clause for Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act: -"the market value of the land on the 1/07/1953 and the value of any improvements to the land effected after that date and before the date of the publication of the notification under sub-s. (1) of S. 4 or the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the said notification, which ever is less".

( 2 ) THUS, whenever land is acquired for the Nagarjunasagar Project under the Nagarjunasagar project Act, the compensation paid is not always the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification as in the case of the Land Acquisition Act, but is either the market value on 1-7-1953 together with the value of the improvements to the land effected after that date and before the date of the publication of the notification or the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification whichever is less. The case of the petitioners is that the provision infringes the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under the second proviso to Art. 31-A of the Constitution which is to the following effect:"provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation it shall not be lawful for the time being in force or any building or structure thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to acquisition of such land, building or structure provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof". It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as the land sought to be acquired is within the ceiling limit applicable to them and as it is under their personal cultivation, S. 23 (1) of the land Acquisition Act as amended by the Nagarjunasagar Act which provides for compensation at the market value of the land as on 1-7-1953 and the value of the improvements, which in the present case is less than the market value of the land on the date of the notification infringes their rights under the second proviso to Art. 31-A and is therefore ultra vires and as a consequence the notification acquiring the land is illegal.

( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the Special Deputy Collector it is admitted that the petitioners have shares in the lands as per the sub division record. The second petitioner is entitled to Ac. 3-26 and the third petitioner is entitled to Ac. 3-09 and one Lakshminarasiah, another brother is entitled to Ac. 4-21 and that all the lands are under their personal cultivation. It is not denied that the lands belonging to the petitioners taken along with other lands owned by them are within the ceiling limit. It is however po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document