HARINARAYAN & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 23-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
c 
) 
E 
G 
H 
HARINARAYAN & ORS. 
V. ' 
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER 
August 23, 1972 
[A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
959 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
Property 
Act 
1952. 
s. 8(3)-CornpensMion under-Requisiticn originally made under De-
fence of India Act, 1939-Whether requisitioning continued till acquisi-
tion made undq 1952 A.ct. 
The property in question was requisitioned by the Government 
of 
India with effect from 17 July 1942 under Rule 75 (A) of the Dofencc 
of India Rules, 1939, The Oovernmont was in possession of the property 
until the Government decid,d to acquire the property in 1953. 
There 
was dispute between the Government and the appellants, in whose favour 
the proporty was he'd under trust, in regard to the compensation payable. 
Under s. 8 (1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Pro· 
p,erty Act 1952 the Government appointed the District Judge, Patna as 
the sole Arbitrate:. 
The Arbitrator held that the provisions of s. 8(3) 
(b) of the 1952 Act under which the compensation payable was twice 
the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open 
market if it had been sold on the date of acquisition, would apply for 
determination of compensation payable for requisition of the property. 
The High Court in appeal upheld the award of the Arbitrator. In appeal 
to this Court by special leave the question that fell for consideration was 
\\'hether the compensation would be determined under clause (a) or (b) 
of sub-section (3) of s. 8 of the 1952 Act. 
Under cl. (a) the compen-
sation shall be the price which the requisitioned property 
would have 
fetched in the open market if it had remained in the same condition as. it 
was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisi· 
lion. 
Another contention raised by the appellant was whether the De-
fence of India Act 1939 having lapsed in February 1946 the year of 
requisition should be 1952 when the 1952 Act came into effect. 
HELD: (i) The requisitioning of the property in question under the 
1939 Act was continued by the Requisitioned Land (Continuance 
of 
Powers) Ordinance 
1946 and 
thereafter by the 
Requisitioned Land 
(Continuance of Powers) Act 1947, the Requisitioning ancl Acquisitio:1 
of Immovable Property Ordinance 1952 and eventually by the 1952 Act. 
Therefore the contention that the year of requisition should 
be 1952 
when the 1952 Act came into effect, was unsound. [961F-962B] 
(ii) In Parekh's case this Court held that the mode of determination of 
compensation provided in section 8(3) (b) of the 1952 Act is arbitrary 
and bad. The result is that the award which was made in the present 
case pursuant to the provisions contained in section 8(3) (b) of the 1952 
Act could not be sustained. 
The appellants would therefore be entitled 
to compensation in accordance with the provisions contained ln section 
8(3)(a) of the 1952 Act. In 1968 bv an amendment clause (b) of sec-
tion 8(3) of the 1952 Act was deleted and section 8(a) was preserved as 
sub-sec. (3) of s. 8. [962E-F] 
Union of India v. Kamlabhai Harjiwandas Parekh & Ors., (1968] 1 
S.C.R. 463, applied. 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] l S.C.R. 
(iii) There was no substance in the 
contention on behalf 
of the 
Government that though s. 8(3)(b) was applied by the Arbitrator 
in 
surnitaoce the Arbitrator gave effect to the provisions of clause (a) 
of 
section 8(3) of the 1952 Act. [962Gl 
(iv) The j.;dgment of the High Court upboldfog the award· of the 
Arbitrator must therefore be set aside. 
Compensallon to the appellant£ 
mu•t be given under s. 8 of the Act. [Directions given acc<>rdingly]. 
[962H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Civil Appeal No. 
1025 
of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated · 
January 13, 1961 of the Patna Itigh Court in Appeal from Ori-
ginal Order No. 198 of 1956. 
Sarioo Prasad, K. K. Sinha, Nand Kishore Prasad, S. K. Sinha· 
'md B. B. Sinha, for the appellants. 
S. P. Nayar, for re.spondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
A 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
Ray, J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment 
dated l3 January, 1961 of tho High Court at Patna dismissing the 
appeal filed by the appellants agdnst the award dated 25. May, 
1956 of the Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition 
of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 
l 952 Act). 
E 
The appellants' mother purcha.!00 the property known as "the 
Cr

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