A law authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land must provide for the payment of compensation for the property acquired and specify the principles on which and the manner in which it is to be determined.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - AMENDMENT ACT - VALIDITY - COMPENSATION - ARTICLE 31(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION - SECTION 299 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - ARTICLE 31-A OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the validity of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948 (Bombay Act IV of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), which amended the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 31-A of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Amending Act was void from its inception as it contravened the provisions of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which required the payment of compensation for property acquired and specified the principles on which and the manner in which it was to be determined. The Court further held that the Amending 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. Additionally, the Court held that Article 31-A of the Constitution did not save the Amending Act as it did not purport to revive laws which were void at the time they were made.
Issues: 1. Whether the Amending Act was void for contravening the provisions of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935? 2. Whether the Amending Act could be saved under Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Amending Act was saved under Article 31-A of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Amending Act was void as it contravened the provisions of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which required the payment of compensation for property acquired and specified the principles on which and the manner in which it was to be determined. The Court held that the Amending Act did not provide for compensation within the meaning of section 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, as it fixed the market value of the land acquired as on January 1, 1948, or the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, whichever was less, without taking into account the value of the land at the time of acquisition. 2. The Court held that the Amending 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 held that the Amending Act was a stillborn law as it was void at the inception and, therefore, it was not an existing law within the meaning of Article 31(5) of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that the Amending Act was not saved under Article 31-A of the Constitution as it did not purport to revive laws which were void at the time they were made. The Court held that Article 31-A only saved laws that were validly enacted and did not apply to laws that were void from their inception.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Amending Act was void from its inception and that the lands acquired should be valued in accordance with the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The decree of the High Court was set aside and the appeals were remanded to the District Court with the direction that it should dispose them of in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

SUBBA RAO J. -The 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 section 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 section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on July 14, 1949, August 1, 1919 and August 11, 1919. On December 31, 1949, possession of the lands so notified was taken under section 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 7 1/2 per sq. yard, and the lands in group No.4 at Rs. 1 -6 -0 per sq. yard and those in group No. 0 at Rs. 1 -4•0 per sq. yard. Though the appellant claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer rupees 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.I,31,096 -4.0 as compensation. The appellant filed an application under section 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 hi!i 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. /2/ - 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.~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 section 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 tiled ~y other claimants and delivered a common judgment on March 26, l958. The High court held that though the Act was hit by Act 14 of the Constitution, it was saved by Article 31 -A thereof and that under section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, 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. 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 appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Bhat for the appellant, Mr. Palkhivala for the interveners, the Attorney -General for the responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis