A legislative provision that provides for the acquisition of property without providing for the payment of compensation to the expropriated owner to the extent of the just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of, is void and unconstitutional.

( 1 ) A single point of law arises for our consideration in both these appeals, namely, whether the Collector was right in valuing the compensation payable for certain plots of land acquired under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (West Bengal Act II of 1948) in accordance with the provisions of the second proviso to Section 7 (1) of the said Act and whether the Court below was wrong in treating the aforesaid provisions as ultra vires;

( 2 ) WEST Bengal Act II of 1948 came into operation on March 11, 1948. Section 7 (1) of. the Act, as it originally stood, is hereinbelow set out:"7 (1) Wherever any land is acquired under Section 4 there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the Collector in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894: provided that the market value referred to in clause first of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act shall, in respect of any land acquired under this Act, be deemed to be the market value of such land on the date of publication of notice referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 4, provided further that if such market value exceeds by any amount the market value of the land on the 31st day of December, 1940 on the assumption that the laud had been on that date in the state in which it in fact was on the date of publication of the notice referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 4, the amount of such excess shall not be taken into consideration. "

( 3 ) THE Act was amended by West Bengal Act VII of 1951, which came into operation on March 21, 1951, and in Section 7 (1) of the Act, after the words and figures "section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894", the words, "so far as they may be applicable" were added.

( 4 ) THE Act was again amended by the West Bengal Act VIII of 1954, which came into operation on March 30, 1954. By Section 8 of the amending Act, Section 7 of the original Act was amended in the following manner: (a) In Sub-section (1) of Section 7, after the word "paid", the words, "to every person interested", were added. (b) In the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7, for the words "sub-section (1) of Section 4" the words "sub-section (1a) of Section 4" were substituted. (c) The second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 was omitted.

( 5 ) THE Act as originally passed had a limited life and was to remain in force upto the 31st day of March, 1951. By West Bengal Act VII of 1951, its life was extended upto the 31st of March, 1954. Again by West Bengal Act VIII of 1954 its life was extended upto the 31st day of March, 1957. Lastly, by West Bengal Act XII of 1957, the life of the Act was extended upto the 31st day of March, 1962.

( 6 ) IT is necessary for us to refer in brief to the facts of each of the two cases, so as to see, how the point of law arises for our consideration.

( 7 ) IN F. A. 141 of 1956, certain plots of land belonging to the respondent Bonbehari Mondal, were acquired for a public purpose, namely Myurakshi-Dwarka Branch Canal Project. The lands were acquired by publication of a notification in the Calcutta Gazette of February 8, 1951, in exercise of the power vested in the State Government under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948. The Collector had made an award for Rs. 840-2-5 to the respondent, There is no dispute that the Collector had proceeded on the basis of the market value of the land as on December 31, 1946. The respondent did not accept the valuation and prayed for a reference to the Land Acquisition Court. The Collector made a reference as prayed for. The learned Land Acquisition Judge enhanced the valuation by a further sum of Rs. 1114-15-7 and passed a decree in favour of the respondent.

( 8 ) IN F. A. 142 of 1956, certain plots of land, belonging to the respondent, Satkari Das, were acquired for the same public purpose by publication of a Notificatio