Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. :

These three petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise the question of the constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961 (Madras Act XXIII of 1961), hereinafter called the Amending Act. We shall briefly state the facts relevant to the question raised. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 144 of 1963, P. Vajravelu Mudaliar, is the owner of lands bearing survey Nos. 4-2, 40-7 and 43-1 of Peruakudal Village and of extents 1.82, 1.39 and 3.72 acres respectively. By a notification dated November 7, 1960, and published in the Fort/St. George Gazette dated November 16, 1960, the Government issued a notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894), hereinafter called the Principal Act notifying that, among other lands, the said lands of the petitioner were needed for a public purpose, to wit, for the development of the area as "neighbourhood" in the Madras City in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Development Scheme of the Government. On November 23, 1960, the Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition issued a notification under S. 4(1) read with S. 17(4), of the Principal Act, and under the said notification the first respondent was authorized to take possession of the petitioner s lands. The Madras Legislature subsequently enacted the Amending Act providing for the acquisition of lands for housing schemes and laying down principles for fixing compensation different from those prescribed in the Principal Act. The petitioner questions the validity of the Amending Act, inter alia, on the ground that it infringes Arts. 14, 19 and 31(2) of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 227 and 228 of 1963, Most Rev. Dr. L. Mathias, Archbishop of Madras, owns lands bearing survey Nos. 17-2-B-1 and 127/2B of extent 50.53 acres and 0.62 acre respectively in Urur, near Madras City. By notification dated November 13, 1961, and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, the Government of Madras issued notification under S. 4(1) of the Principal Act notifying, among other lands, that the said lands of the petitioner were needed for a public purpose, to wit, for the development of the area as the "neighbourhood" in Madras City in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Development Schemes of the Government. It was also stated in the notification that in view of the urgency, under S. 17(4) of the Principal Act, the application of the provisions of S. 5(a) of the said Act was dispensed with, and that compensation in respect of the said acquisition would be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Amending Act.

3. The said petitioner (W. P. No. 228 of 1963) also owns lands bearing survey Nos. 153/1 and 154/2 at Thiruvanmiyur Village, Chingleput District, of the extent 21.56 and 10.50 acres respectively totalling about 32 acres. The said lands were also notified for acquisition and the petitioner was told that he would be paid compensation under the Amending Act.

4. The said petitioner in these two petitions questions the constitutional validity of the said Amending Act on the ground, inter alia, that it offends Arts. 14, 19 and 31(2) of the Constitution.

5. To the three petitions the Special Deputy Collector for land Acquisition, West Madras, and the Government of Madras are made parties. In their counters the respondents pleaded, among others, that the said Act was saved under Art. 31-A of the Constitution and, therefore, its validity could not be questioned on the ground that it infringes either Art. 14, Art. 19 or Art. 31(2) of the Constitution; and that even if Art. 31-A was not attracted, the provisions of the Amending Act would not infringe any of the said three provisions. In these petitions some interveners are represented by their counsel and this Court had also given notices to the Advocates-General of various States. We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, interveners, and the State of Madras and the