NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER versus VITHAL RAO AND OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 11-12-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 17 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
- -. ' 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
39 
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER 
v . 
VITHAL RAO AND OTHERS 
December 11, 1972 
[S, M. SIKRI, C. J., J.M. SHELAT, A. N. RAY, D.-0. PALEKAR, 
M. H. BEG, S. N. DWIVEDI AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
. 
Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 and Land Requisition Act 1894 
-Different terms of compensation for land acquired under 
the 
two 
Acts-Where <;;overnment could acquire land under one Act or the other 
at its choice there was discrimination violativ~ of Art. 14 of Constitu-
_tion-There can· be ho valid classificction as to payment of compensation 
with reference to purpose for which land is acquired or of' Act µnder 
which it is acquired. 
· 
The petitioner was tenant of some fields in a village in Patwari Circle 
10, Nagpur. He had applied to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under 
a local Act for fixing the purchase price of the said fields. 
The land in 
question was however acquired under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 
. 1936. 
Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded the petitioner filed a 
petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In this petition 
the validity of the Improvement Act was challenged on various grounds, 
one of the grounds being that the Improvement Act was in violation of 
Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it empowered the acquisition of 
lands at prices lower than those which would have been payable if they 
had been ucquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 •. The High 
Cou'rt allowed the petition and set aside the award. Appeal in this Court 
against the High Court's judgment was filed with certificate. 
Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : 
The effect of the modifications made by Improvement Act 
in the Land Acquisition Act in two respects is tremendous. 
First the 
O\\'-Oer where land is acquired under the Improvement Act is paid com ... 
pensation not according to the market vaJue of the land but the market 
value according to the use to which the land was put at the date with . 
reference to which the market value is to be determined in that clause. 
In other words, if the land is being used for agricultural purposes even 
though it has a potential value as a building site, ·the potential value is 
to be ignored. 
The second respect in which the owner suffers if the land 
is acauired under the Imorovement Act is that he does not ~et a sotatium 
of 15% which he would have got if the land had been acquired under the 
Land Acquisition Act. 
It is true that he bas some minor advantage but 
they hz.ve no comparison in value to the loss suffered by virtue of the 
market value being de!ermined according to the use to which the land 
was being put or the loss of 15% of the market value of the fand. 
[146DJ 
It is quite clear especially in view of s. 17A as inserted in the Land 
Acquisition Act bv para 6 of the Schedule to the Improvement Act, that 
the acquisition will be by the Government and it.is only on pavment of 
the cost of acquisition bv the Government that the land-vest in the Trust. · 
It is true that the acquisition is for the Tru-st >and may be at its instance9 
but nevertheless the acquisition is by the Government. If this is so, it 
enables the State Government to discriminate between one owner equally 
situated from another owner. [45G] 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973] 3 S.C.R. 
It is now well-settled that the State can make a reasonable classification 
f?r the .purpose o_f the legisfation provided it is based on intelligible differen· 
tia hav.mg. a r~tiona! ~elation with the object sought to be achieved by 
the legislation in question. 
In this connection it must be borne in mind 
that the object itself should be lawful. [47D] 
The legislature cannot lay down different princip~s of compensation 
for lands acquired say for a hospital or a school or a Government build· 
ing. All three objects are public purposes and so far as the owner is 
concerned it docs not matter to him whether it is one public purpose or 
the other. Art. 14 confers an individual right and in order to justify a 
classification there should be something which justifies a different treat-
ment to this individual right. Ordinarily a classification based on the 
public purpose is not permissible under Art. 14 for the purpose of deter· 
mining compensation. [48A] 
Similarly different principles cannot be laid if the land is acquired for 
or by an Improvement Trust or Municipal C\Jrporation or Government 
because so far as the owner is concerned it does not 

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