1975 Supreme(Cal) 117

High Court Of Calcutta
M. M. Dutt, N. C. Mukherji
RAMENDRA NATH NANDI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D.  13  Of  1966
Decided On : 04/30/1975

A classification or discrimination made between two sets of persons similarly placed may be upheld as valid only if it is based on an intelligible differentia and the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation concerned.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECOND PARAGRAPH OF CLAUSE (B) OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 8 (1) OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ACT, 1948 (ACT XXI OF 1948) AS AMENDED BY THE WEST BENGAL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1955 (ACT XXIX OF 1955) - WHETHER ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER THE OWNERS OF THE ACQUIRED LANDS ARE ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCE OF 15 PER CENT UNDER SECTION 23 (2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (ACT I OF 1894).

Fact of the Case:

In these two appeals, which arise out of proceedings for compensation of land acquired under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the principal question relates to the constitutional validity of the second paragraph of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 8 (1). as amended by the West Bengal Land Development and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act ).

Finding of the Court:

The second paragraph of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 8 (1) of the Act as amended, having made a differential treatment to the owners of land similarly situated without any rational relation to the object sought to be achieved, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and is void. The appellants are entitled to the payment of compensation on the basis of the market value on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1), as laid down in the first paragraph of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 8 (I ). The appellants are also entitled to the solatium as provided in Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the second paragraph of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 8 (1) of the Act as amended is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the owners of the acquired lands are entitled to the statutory allowance of 15 per cent under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The second paragraph of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 8 (1) of the Act as amended makes a discrimination between owners of land under like circumstances and situations. The impugned provision seeks to make a discrimination between owners of land under like circumstances and situations. It is true that the legislature is competent to make a reasonable classification but that classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation concerned. It is only under the circumstances that a classification or discrimination made between two sets of persons similarly placed may be upheld as valid. There is no indication in the Act or in the Amending Act why such a discrimination has been made with regard to the payment of compensation. If a piece of land is acquired for settlement of immigrants and another piece of land is acquired for a public purpose other than for settlement of immgrants, the owner of the land which is acquired for settlement of immigrants will get compensation not exceeding the market value of the land as on December 31, 1946. But in the other case, the owner will get compensation equivalent to the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1 ). The purpose for which a land is acquired has nothing to do with the amount of compensation that has to be paid by the State; the object of the Act as stated above, is simply to provide for the acquisition and development of land for public purposes. We fail to see what relation can a specific public purpose or the amount of compensation can have to the said object. The purpose for which a land is acquired is immaterial to the owner of the land. The owner is only interested in the payment of compensation. He is not interested in the purpose for which the land is acquired. If he finds that the land of another person has been acquired and that person gets a higher amount of compensation he will be entitled to make a reasonable grievance about the same. In our opinion, it will be no answer that because the land has been acquired for settlement of immigrants the compensation mast not exceed the market value of the land as on December 31, 1946. As has been stated already, we do not see any relation, far less any rational relation, between the classification made between owners of lands regarding payment of compensation and the object of the Act or the object sought to be achieved by such classification. 2. Section 8 (2) of the Act excluding the application of Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act is violative of Article 14 and is not saved by Article 31-B of the Constitution. The owners of the lands are entitled to the statutory solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act in consideration of compulsory acquisition of their lands.

Final Decision: Both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, there will be no order for costs either in this Court or in the Courts below.