1971 Supreme(Cal) 9

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. MUKHARJI, B. C. MISRA
RANADEB CHAUDHURI - Appellant
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION JUDGE, 24-PARGNAAS - Respondent
.   Of  .
Decided On : January 13, 1971

The amendment of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 by Act XXIII of 1955 violated Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution, as it provided for different rates of compensation for land acquired for different purposes and for inadequate compensation.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - WEST BENGAL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ACT, 1948 (ACT XXI OF 1948) - AMENDMENT ACT XXIII OF 1955 - SECTION 7 (1) (D) - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 14, 31 AND 31B OF THE CONSTITUTION - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - ARTICLE 228 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WITHDRAWAL OF CASE FROM SUBORDINATE COURT - PROCEDURE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's mother owned about 10 bighas of land in Jadavpur, which was notified for settlement of immigrants under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948. The land was acquired under the said Act in 1957. The petitioner challenged the acquisition on the ground that the amendment of Section 8 of the Act by Act XXIII of 1955 violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it provided for different rates of compensation for land acquired for different purposes. The petitioner also contended that the amendment was ultra vires Article 31 (2) of the Constitution, as it provided for inadequate compensation.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the questions raised by the petitioner involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and that it was necessary to withdraw the case from the subordinate court for the determination of these questions. The Court also held that the procedure laid down in Rule 14a, Part I, Chapter II, of the High Court Appellate Side Rules must be followed with regard to the determination of these questions.

Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 by Act XXIII of 1955 violated Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the amendment was ultra vires Article 31 (2) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the questions raised by the petitioner involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution? 4. Whether it was necessary to withdraw the case from the subordinate court for the determination of these questions?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amendment of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 by Act XXIII of 1955 violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it provided for different rates of compensation for land acquired for different purposes. The Court held that this was discriminatory and violated the principle of equality before the law. 2. The Court held that the amendment was ultra vires Article 31 (2) of the Constitution, as it provided for inadequate compensation. The Court held that the compensation provided by the amendment was not just and equitable, and that it did not take into account the market value of the land. 3. The Court held that the questions raised by the petitioner involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Court held that these questions were necessary for the disposal of the case, and that they could not be decided by the subordinate court. 4. The Court held that it was necessary to withdraw the case from the subordinate court for the determination of these questions. The Court held that this was necessary in order to ensure that the questions were properly decided, and that the petitioner's rights were protected.

Final Decision: The Court made an order of withdrawing the pending L. R. A. Case No. 55/63 (V) mentioned above for determination of the substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution mentioned in paragraph 13 of the petition originally but now reframed in the manner set out elsewhere in this judgment.