LexN. B. JEEJEEBHOY versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, THANA PRANT, TRANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
G36 N. B. JEEJEEBHOY A v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, '!HANA PRANT, TRANA October 5, 1964 (K. SUBBA RAo, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, B RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND S. M. SIXIU JJ.) G<1Vtrnment of India Act, 1935, J. 299-"Comptll.fation", mtaning of- 'rhe Land Acquisition (Bombay A.mtndm.nt) Act, 1948-Vio/all>e "' s. 299(2)-If saved by Am. 31(5)(a), 31-A and 31-B of th• Constilutiori of India The appcllant's le.nds were acquired for the purpose of a housing acheme. The requisite notification were issued under s. 4 of the Land AcqW.ition Act, 1894, in May 1948 and under •· 6 in July and August 1949, and possession of the land! was taken under•· 17 in December 194~. In the course of proceeding.. for the ascertainment of compensation payable to the appellanu, both the Land Acquisition Officer and the Diotrict C.ourt, to which the matter was referred, awarded compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amend· men!) Act, 1948, i.t,, on the basis of the value of tho land! aa on JanU&ry 1, 1948 and not upon the value on the date of the 1. 4 noti- fic•tion. On appeal it was held by the High Court that though the Bombay Amending Act was hit by Art. 14 it was saved by Art. 31-A and that under s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which governed the statute, the compensation for compulsory acquisition did not nec=arily mean equivalent in value to what the owner had been deprived of. HELD : ( i) Ascertainment of compensation on the basis of the value of the land! acquired as on the !st January 1948 and not as on the date on which the a. 4 notification under the 1894 Act was issued, in the aboeoce of any relevant circu1)l3tances requiring the fixing of an anterior date, was. arbitrary, (643 A·B]. Therefore, the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948, did not satisfy the requirements of a. 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, in that it did not provide for "compensation" in the nature of "just equivalent" of what the owner was deprived of, and Wa.'i therefore •oid. [644 G-H; 645 A]. . (ii) The provisiono of Art. 31(2) and•. 299(2) relating to compensa- tion were pari 1naleria with each other and in the context of the payment or ascertainment or compensation there was no di.\tinction between the two provisions justifying a different interpretation of each and for giviag a more restricted meaning to s. 299(2). [641 E-F; (>43 B-C; 644 A-BJ. Stnu of Wm Brnga/ v. Mrs. Bela B<maju, (1954) S.C.R. 558. followed. (iii) The decision in .\!rs. Bela B(merjee's case Wa.J not based on the circumstance that the court, ln that case, was dealing with a permanent Act. On principle, in the context of ascertainment of c.ompen.ution. there v.·as no jurisdiction for a distinction solely because once \VftS a pt..-ra1a- ncnt and another a temporary Act. [644 C-D). · c D E F G II JBBJBBBHOY v. ASST. COLLBCTOlt (Subba Rao/.) 637 A (iv) The Bombay Amending Act being void at the inception, wu not ·an .. existing law" within the meaning of Art. 31(5)(a) or Art. 31-A at the date of the commencement of the Conatitution and could not therefQrt be saved by either of these pl'O\isiOlll!. (646 A, C-D, G]. H. P. Khandalwa/ v. State of U.P. A.l.R. 1955 All. 12, The Asstt. Collector, Thana Prant, Thana v. 111"""""'3 Goku/das Patel, I.L.R. 1959 Dom. 98 and State of West Bengal v. Bon Behari Mondo/, A.I.R. 1961 Cal. B 112, referred to. Dhiruba Devisingh Gohl/ v. Stare of Bombay. (1955] 1 S.C,R. 691 and State of U.P. v. H.H. Maharaja Brijeniira Slrrgh l.L.R. (1961) 1 All. 236. distinguished. Article 31-B is not governed by Art. 31-A nor is it merely illwtrative of cases that would otherwise fall under Art. 31-A. Article 31-B is a constitutional device to place the specified statutes beyond any attack on c the ground that they infringe Part III of the Coostitution. (648 E-H; 649 A]. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 775 and 776 of 1962. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 26, )958, of the Bombay High Court in First Appeals Nos! 318, D 611 of 1954. J. C. Bhat, and R. P. Bhat, for the appellant (in both the appeals). C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent (in both the E appeals). . F N. A. Palkhivala, and R. A. Gagrat, for Interveners Nos. 1 and 2. Purshottam Trikamdas, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, and K. R. Chaudhuri, for Interveners
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.