BALAMMAL & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 23-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BALAMMAL & ORS. El'C. 
v. 
$1'Al'E OF MADRAS & ORS. El'C. 
April 23, 1968 
[J. C. ,SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Ma~~as City Improvement Trust Act 16 of 1945-Repealed and re-. 
placed by 4ct 37 of '195Q-CI. 6(2). of Schedule deleting the provision 
for statutory..solatill'ln ins. 23(2) 'of Land Acquisition Act 1894 lvf~!ther· 
va!id-W/lether contravenes Art. 14 of Constitution-Conzpensation on 
the. b~sis of market-viilue of property as on the date of .notification under 
s. 47 of the Act lvhether "just equivalent". 
. 
Under the Madras City Improvement Trust Act 16 of 1945 a Board 
of Trustees \Vas crea.ted wiith powers to carry out the provisions of the 
Act ... Section 73 of the Act pro,vided that for purpose of acquiring land 
for ,the ·Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the latter Act shall 
be subject" to ~he' modifications specified in the Schedule. By cl. 6(2) 
of the Schedule the 15% solatium payable under s. 23(2) of the Land 
Acquisition Act would not be payable in respect of certain types of land. 
Acr 16.of 1945 was repealed and replaced by Madras Act 37 of 1950 
and under ·s. 113 (2) thereof all proceedings taken under the 1945 Act 
were to be deemed to have been taken under -the new Act: But cl. 6(2') 
of tbe Schedule to the 1950 Act deleted s. 23(2) of the 1894 Act and 
substituted for it a new provision, the result of which was that under the 
new Act 15% solatium \vould not 'be payable ·to those whose land \Vas 
acquired. 
The Board of Trustees framed two schemes for improvement 
of the town of Madras and in pursuance of the schemes notificatioris 
under s. 47 of the 1945 Act (corresponding to a 
notification under 
s. :4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act) were issued in 1948 and notifica-
tions under s! 53 (corresponding to a notification under s. 6 of the Land 
Acquisition Act) were issued in 1950. The, 
Land Acquisition Officer 
declined to award 15% solatium to the appellants and after valuing 'the 
lands according 4o the scheme framed by the Board awarded compensa-
tion. The Chief Judge ·of the Court of Small Causes Madras to whom 
references under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were made awarded 
enhanced compensation and lllso solatium at 15%. The High' Court in 
appeals filed bef0re it determined the market-value of the lands at rates 
in cicess of 4hose fixed by the Chief Judge but set aside the order award-
ing 15% solatium on the market-value. In appeal to this Court against 
thii order of the High Court among others the following questions arose 
for determination : (i) whether the notices 
under s. 47 having been 
issned nnder 4he Act of 1945, the solatium of 15% provided for under 
that Act would still be payable despite the passage of the 1950 Act; (ii) 
whether cl. 6(2) of the Schedule to the 1950 Act was ultra vires as 
violative of Art. 14; (iii) whether compensation on the basis of market-
value as on the date of issue of noti:fic:'ltion undeir s. 
47 was a 'just 
equivalent' of the value of .the lands expropriated when there was a time-
lag between the issue of the aforesaid notification and the date on which 
pdssession was taken; (iv) whether the High Court was right in raising 
the rates of compensation alone those fixed by the Chief Judge. 
HELD : (i) Although by cl. 6 of the Schedule to Act 16 of 1945 
solatium was awardable 4o the owners of the land acquired for 
the 
Improvement Trust yet since by s. 173(2) of Act 37 of 19.'i_Q all the 
Proceedings which were• commenced up.der the Act of 1945 were to be 
I 
. 
• 
• 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
... 
G 
H 
.... 
A 
B 
c 
• 
D 
BALAMMAL V. MADRAS STATE (Shah, J.) 
91 
deemed to be taken under Act 37 of 
1950, compensation awardable 
by virtue of cl. 6 of the Schedule to the new Act read w;!h s. 173(2) of 
that Act could not include the statutory solatium. The Legislature bas 
thereby deprived the owners of the lands of a rjgl>t to compensation even 
in 
proceedings 
for 
acquisition 
commenced before Act 37 
1945. 
[95 F-G] 
(ii) However sub-cl. (2) of cl. 6 of the Schedule to Act 37 of 19'50 
insofar as it deprived the owners of the. lands of the statutory addition 
to the market-value of the lands under s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition 
. .\ct is violative of the equality clause of the. Constitution and is on that 
account void. 
An o\vncr of land is ordinarily entitled to receive the 
s:olatium in addition to the market&value, for compulsory acquisition of 
his land, if it is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act but not if

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.