DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR, KAMRUP & ORS. versus DURGA NATH SARMA

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 15-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

061 
A DEPUTY . COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR, KAMRUP 
& ORS. 
B 
v. 
DURGA NATH SARMA 
September 15, 1967 
[K. N. WA~CHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
The Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Preven-
tion of Erosion Act (6 .of 1955) and the Assam Acquisition of Land 
for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion (Validity) Act (21 of 
1960~If violative of Arts, 14 and 31(2) a! the Constitution. 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 31(5)(b)(ii)-Scope of. 
The Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention 
of Erosion Act. 1955. was passed before the Constitution was amend-
ed by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act. As the Act did not 
apply to the lands which were taken possession of before it came 
into force, the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Pre. 
vention of Erosion (Validation) Act, 1959. Act XXI of 1960 was pass-
D ed, validating the .requisition of lands of which such possession had 
been taken. Under s. 2 of the 1960 Act any land taken over for the 
construction of embankments before the 1955 Act came into force 
unless the acquisition was validly made under any other law for 
the time being in force shall be deemed to have been validity acquir-
ed under the 1955 Act and is deemed to have vested in the State 
Government from the date the land was actually taken possession 
of; and compensation was payable in accordance with the principles 
E in s. 6 of the 1955 Act. Under s. 6(1) of the 1955 Act the owner of 
the land shall get compensation for land including standing crops 
and trees. if any, but excluding buildings or structures, a sum not 
exceeding 40 times the annual land revenue in case of periodic patta 
land and 15 times the annual land revenue in case of annual patt\i 
land. Under s. 6(2) the owner shall get compensation for the build-' 
ing or structure. if any, a sum equivalent to the sale proceeds of the 
F materials plus fifteen per cent thereof. 
In 1954. the Assam Government took possession of the lands of 
the respondent for the construction of an embankment and the res-
pondent was asked to submit his claim for compensation under the· 
1955 and 1960 Acts after the 1960 Act was passed. He then filed a 
writ petition challenging the validity of both the Acts and prayed 
for a direction prohibiting the State Government from taking action 
under those Acts as the compensation payable was illusory and in-
G adequate. The High Court held that the 1955 Act was violati".e of 
Art. 31 (2), as it stood before the Fourth Amendment Act, th~t it was 
not protected by Art. 31A, and that. the 1960 Act was not mdepen-
den: of the 1955 Act and fell with it. 
In appeal bv the State Government to this Court the appellant 
submitted that the two Acts were not violative of Arts._ 14 an~. 31(·2) 
and were i_n any event protected by Arts. 31A and Jj(.5)(]))(11). 
H 
fa:LD: (1 l Tho constitutional validitv of the 1955 Act must be 
i•idged by Art. 3112! as it stood before. the Fourth Amendment Act: 
Since the assessment of land revenue m Assam many years ago, the 
market value of the lands has increased by l~aps and bounds. Un~er 
s. 6(!) of the Act, the Collector. m determmmg the compensation. 
L/JiN)~SCI-10 
562 
SUPREME OOURl' REPORTS 
[1968] l S.0.B. 
should take into account the value of the land as at the date of the A 
acquisition and other factors, but this is meaningless because under 
the first part of s. 6(1) the compensation cannot exceed a fixed mul-
tiple of the annual land revenue. The State made no attempt to 
show that a multiple of land revenue payable for the land is a just 
equivalent of or has any relation to the market value of the land 
on the date of the acquisition. The sale proceeds under s. 6(2) can-
not be regarded as a just equivalent of the'value of the building as 
it stood at the time of the acquisition. The Act, therefore, does not B 
ensure payment of just equivalent of the land appropriated and is 
violative of Art. 31 (2) as it stood before the Fourth Amendment. 
[576H; 577F-H; 578A-C] 
. State of West Benga! v, Be!a Banerjee, [1954] S.C.R 558 
and 
State of Madras v. D. Namasivaya Muda!iar, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 936, 
followed. 
(2) The Act is a purely expropriatory measure. It provides for C 
acquisition of lands both urban and agricultural for executing works 
in connection with flood control or prevention of erosion. A piece of 
land acquired under the Act need not be an estate or part of an 
estate.

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