JUDGMENT - (1) (After stating facts and dealing with matters not material for reporting his Lordship proceeded): The next question, which falls to be determined, is whether the claimans are entitled to compensation at the market rate prevailing on 28th May 1948, the date on which the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, or at the rate prevailing on 1st January 1948, and whether the claimants are entitled to the 15 per cent solatium in addition to the market value of the lands. By Bombay Act IV of 1948 the Bombay Legislature has amended section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Section 3 of Bombay Act IV of 1948 provides by the first sub-section:

"Where during the continuance of this Act and land is required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894........ for the prupose of a housing scheme the said Act shall have effect in relation to such acquisition as if-

(a) in clause (f) of section 3 after the words "such provision" the words and brackets and a housing scheme as defined in the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948" had been inserted;

* * * * * *

(c) in section 23-

(i) in the first clause of sub-section (1), after the words, brackets and figures "section 4, sub-section(1)" the words "or at the relevant date, which ever is less" had been inserted; and

(ii) sub-section (2) had been omitted."

The expression "relevant date" is defined, in section 2(ii) as meaning the first day of January 1948, and the expression housing scheme" is defined in section 2(i) as meaning

"any housing scheme which the Government may from time to time undertake for the purpose of increasing accommodation for housing periods and shall include any such scheme undertaken from time to time with the previous sanction of the State Government by a local authority or company." Evidently the effect of section 3 of Bombay Act IV of 1948 is to deny to the owners of the lands compulsorily acquired the 15 per cent solatium awardable under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the market value which is to be awarded under section 23; and in determining the amount of compensation the Court must ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 and the market value on 1st January 1948 and to award to the owner of the land, the smaller of the two amounts. In this case, there is no dispute that the land values in the locality were rising before 1st January 1948 and continued to rise even thereafter. If Bombay Act IV of 1948 applies, the claimants will be entitled to compensation without the additional solatium, and the prevailing market rate on 1st January 1948 and not on 28th May 1948. The land Acquisition Officer and the learned trial Judge have awarded compensation to the claimants on the market value prevailing on 1st January 1948, and they have not awarded to the claimants the 15 per cent, solatium.

(2) In this Court, the competence of the Bombay legislature to enact Bombay Act IV of 1948 is challenged. In the trial Court, on behalf of the claimants in Reference No. 49 of 1953 it was submitted that Bombay Act IV of 1948 was "illegaal and ultra vires" the Bombay Legislature. The contention was, however not pressed in the arguments, and the learned Judge held that the Act was not ultra vires the Bombay Legislature. In this court, however, all the claimants, who have either appealled or have sought to support the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer in appeals filed by that Officer, have supporte the contention that Bombay Act IV of 1948 is ultra vires the Bombay Legislature. We have issued notice to the advocate General under Order 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to appear and to assist us in the determination of this question, and the learned Government Pleader has appeared before us on behalf of the Advocate- General.

(3) The argument in support of the contention that Bombay Act IV of 1948 was ultraa vires, was sought to be founded upon the terms of section 299 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document