1973 Supreme(All) 106

Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA,N.D.OJHA
Prabhu Lal - Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer - Respondent
Decided On : 04/18/1973

Headnote:

TOWN IMPROVEMENT ACT - Acquisition of Land - Compensation - Market Value - Determination - Date of Reference - Article 14 of the Constitution - Applicability.

Fact of the Case:

Appellants challenged the acquisition of their plots and the assessment of compensation. The Improvement Trust of Allahabad framed a scheme under the U. P. Town Improvement Act, 1919. The scheme was known as South Housing Scheme, Part II. The relevant notifications under Sections 36 and 42 of the Act were published on 23-6-1928 and 8-7-1936 respectively. The scheme was being executed in part from time to time and notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30-8-1961, in so far as the plots belonging to the appellants are concerned. An award was given on 25-9-1961 and a reference in regard to the amount of compensation made to the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal is said to be still pending. The compensation, however, was awarded on the basis of the market value of the land in 1928 when the notification under Section 36 was issued. The writ petition was pressed on various grounds.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the acquisition of the appellants' land by continuation of the scheme under the Adhiniyam is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as if a new scheme was framed under Chapter 14 of the Adhiniyam, the said scheme would have in view of sub-section (4) of Section 365 of the Adhiniyam, to be completed at least up to the stage of making of awards within a period of five years from the date of the notification of the scheme under Section 363 or at most, within six years, if the said period was extended by one year under the first proviso to the aforesaid sub-section; whereas, if an old scheme was continued, it could be completed on or before the 31st of December, 1967. According to the learned counsel this was bound to be prejudicial to those whose land was sought to be acquired under the old scheme, inasmuch as those whose land is sought to be acquired under the old scheme, would be paid compensation in accordance with the market value of the land as it existed on the date when the relevant notification was issued under the Act, which may be 30 years or 40 years before the completion of the scheme; whereas, the persons whose land is acquired under Chapter 14 of the Adhiniyam, the difference between the dates on which the notification is issued under Section 363 and the date on which the scheme is completed, would only be five years, or at best six years.

Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of the appellants' land by continuation of the scheme under the Adhiniyam is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act by paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the Act, or the Adhiniyam, were hit by Article 14 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquisition of the appellants' land by continuation of the scheme under the Adhiniyam is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that if a new scheme was framed under Chapter 14 of the Adhiniyam, the said scheme would have in view of sub-section (4) of Section 365 of the Adhiniyam, to be completed at least up to the stage of making of awards within a period of five years from the date of the notification of the scheme under Section 363 or at most, within six years, if the said period was extended by one year under the first proviso to the aforesaid sub-section; whereas, if an old scheme was continued, it could be completed on or before the 31st of December, 1967. The court found that this was bound to be prejudicial to those whose land was sought to be acquired under the old scheme, inasmuch as those whose land is sought to be acquired under the old scheme, would be paid compensation in accordance with the market value of the land as it existed on the date when the relevant notification was issued under the Act, which may be 30 years or 40 years before the completion of the scheme; whereas, the persons whose land is acquired under Chapter 14 of the Adhiniyam, the difference between the dates on which the notification is issued under Section 363 and the date on which the scheme is completed, would only be five years, or at best six years. 2. The court held that the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act by paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the Act, or the Adhiniyam, were hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. The court reasoned that the said amendments discriminated against those whose land was acquired under the old scheme, as they would be paid compensation in accordance with the market value of the land as it existed on the date when the relevant notification was issued under the Act, which may be 30 years or 40 years before the completion of the scheme; whereas, the persons whose land is acquired under Chapter 14 of the Adhiniyam, the difference between the dates on which the notification is issued under Section 363 and the date on which the scheme is completed, would only be five years, or at best six years.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed.