The provisions of a law providing for the determination of the amount for the acquisition of lands must be just, fair, and reasonable, and must not be discriminatory.

Headnote:
The Bombay High Court held that the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which provided for the determination of the amount for the acquisition of lands in municipal areas, were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the provisions were not protected by Article 31C of the Constitution, which provides protection to laws enacted to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) or (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. Further, the Court held that the provisions were not just, fair, or reasonable and, therefore, violated the right conferred by Article 300A of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were owners of lands in municipal areas, challenged the constitutional validity of section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, which provided for the determination of the amount for the acquisition of lands in municipal areas. The petitioners claimed that the provisions were discriminatory as they provided for different standards for the grant of compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands in municipal areas and rural areas, and that such different standards had no nexus to the object to be achieved.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of section 44 of the Act were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the provisions were not protected by Article 31C of the Constitution, and that they were not just, fair, or reasonable and, therefore, violated the right conferred by Article 300A of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, were discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provisions were protected by Article 31C of the Constitution? 3. Whether the provisions were just, fair, or reasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of section 44 of the Act were discriminatory as they provided for different standards for the grant of compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands in municipal areas and rural areas, and that such different standards had no nexus to the object to be achieved. 2. The Court held that the provisions were not protected by Article 31C of the Constitution, as they were not enacted to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) or (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that the provisions were not just, fair, or reasonable and, therefore, violated the right conferred by Article 300A of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the action taken by the respondents to deprive the petitioners of their land.

Per Pendse, J-This petition and 13 other petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise the question of constitutional validity of section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, being Maharashtra Act No. XXVIII of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which provides the basis for determination of amount for acquisition of lands in Municipal areas. The petitioners in all these petitions are owners of lands, either agricultural or non-agricultural, situated within the Municipal areas. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petition and it would suffice if the facts in the main petition are stated to appreciate the questions urged by the rival sides.

2. The land involved in this Writ Petition bears Survey No. 28 and admeasures 398.60 Hectares and is situated at village Bhushi in Maval Taluka of Pune District. Mohanlal Fakirchand was the owner of this land having purchased it under sale-deed dated January 18, 1966. Mohanlal Fakirchand died on May 18, 1976, leaving behind petitioner No. 1 his widow, and petitioners Nos. 2 to 5-his children. On August 1, 1978, respondent No. 2-Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority-sent a letter to Municipal Council, Lonavala eliciting information regard-ing need of local populace for housing accommodation for economic weaker section, low income group and middle income group. For the purpose of assessing the demand for tenements, the Municipal Council issued two advertisements dated August 13, 1972 and 1979 in the local newspapers inviting applications for housing accommodation from general public. After having assessed the requirements, respondent No. 2, by letter d'ated September 15, 1979 conveyed to the State Government its initial requirement of an area of about 26 Hectares for the purpose of pro-posed social housing scheme to be developed' within the limits of Lortavala:: Municipal Council, and requested the Government to publish notification under the provisions of section 41 (1) of the Act. The proposal was pro-cessed by the Public Works and Housing Department and the State Govern-ment published a notice under the proviso to section 41 (1) of the Act and the notice was published in the Government Gazette on August 30, 1979 inviting objections to the proposed acquisition. In pursuance of this notice, petitioner No. 3 lodged his protest on September 6, 1979. After considering the various objections, including that of petitioner No. 3, the State Government published the final notification under subsection (1) of section 41 of the Act in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated July 3, 1980 acquiring certain lands, including that of the petitioners. Sub-sec-tion (2) of section 41 of the Act provides that acquisition of lands for any purpose mentioned in sub-section (l)shall be deemed to be a public pur-pose; while sub-section (3) of section 41 prescribes that the land ore and from the date on which the notification is published., shall vest absolu-tely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. On December 12, 1980, the notice was issued under sub-section (1) of section 42 of the Act to the landholders to surrender and deliver possession to the Collector of Pune within a period of thirty days. In January 1981, the petitioners; lodged their objection on the ground that Survey No. 28 of village Bhushi was not included In the notification published in the Gazette, as Survey No. 28 described is of village Maval. In pursuance to the objection lodged by the petitioner, on May 15, 1981 the State Government published a corrigendum making the requisite correction and thereafter on September” 15, 1981 a fresh notice for delivery of possession was issued. The peti-tioners thereafter filed the present petition in this Court on December 17 1981.

3. The petitioners claim that there was no material before the State Government to exercise powers under section 41 of the Act, and, therefore, the notification issued under section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document