LexRAM NATH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'572 A B RAl\1 NATH & ORS. v.· UNION OF INDIA April 25, 1984 [D.A. DrsA1, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND R.B. M1sRA, n:1 · C1Jnstitution of Irtdia:_Art. 31-B-Scope of-Whether protection UtZder Art. 31-B to Acts inserted in the Ninth Schedule against l'iolation of fundame,n(al r.ights inPqrt 111 of the Cpnstiiution extends against violaiion of rights und~r C s. 299 of the Government of India Act .1935-He/a yes. .D F G H Re.settlenie_nt of-DisplacedPersolls (larid Acqufsitiun) Act, 1948-Two· pro· visons to sub-cl. (e) ofs•b-s. (/) ofs. 77Vq/idity of-Held, valid- _ S. 7 of lthe Reset.t_le'n1ent of Displaced Persons (Lacd A~qui~i_t_i~p) Act, 1948 broadly. p,rovided for payment, cf com_peos1tio11 for the land to be acquired for carrYin!J OUt the! purpose~ of tb-e Act aod the minner a~·d method of computation of compensation. Sub·clause. (a) of sub-s (I) . provided for determinirlg the compensation having due regard to the provi· sioils of sub-scc_tion (1) 9f Sec. 23 of· the- Land Acquisition Act, 18?4, that is the n1arkct price of the land on. the da.te -of acquisition. Tho ,two prOvisos ·carved out ao c:iccCption. The first~ 'part of .the first proviso "Was in cdnson1nc~ \.Vith ss. 4 and 6 or the Land Acquisition Act n1meJy that the m.irket valuc··shall be de'crn1ined as on the date of the public.Ltioo of tho notic\! under -section, 3. Notice under sectiOit 3 ser·ved the Purpo~e of a. ·11otificJtion under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. f! is the second paft of the first' proviso that really affected the.compensation, when it said th1t. either the market value referred to Jn the firSt clau~e of Sub·s. (I) of s. 23 of the s:.iid Act shall be deemed to be the niark-:t value of such land on the ·date of .pubfii;;ition ~f the no.tice under s. 3 or rnar-ket VJ.Jue of the land on the Jst d:iy of Sepcemb,.::r, 1939, with an a~dition of 40% whichever was less. The 'iec~nd p.rcvisn catered to the situ·1tit>n wnere !::ind acquired had bee·n·h~ld by the owner thereof und::r a purchase made before the Ist'.day of April.; 1984 but 5!fter the rst day of September, 1939. . 2. · ·These J>lots of lari'H i>ituated in Delhi and possessed· by the two appellants were aCqulred by the respondent in 1950 under the Reseitlerncnt of Displaced Persons (Land Acq1Aisition) Act, 1948. Ari arbi.trator was appointed as envisaged bys. 7(1) (b) of ihe Act to assess the compensation. T_he appel"lants and the Union .of [ndia appeafed before th~· arbitr3.tor and the compensation was determi.ned by the arbitrator. The appellants perfcr .. red two' separate appeals against the a~ard of the .ar~itrator in the High Ccurt. A Div~sion .Bench Of the High Court fo-llow ing a decision of the Full Bench of the High Court dismissec:I the appeals, but gr'anted· a certificate under A rt. 133( I) (c). .In these appeals-the appep ants contended that. the two provisos to sub-clause (e) of sub·s.(1) of s.7_of the Act were violative or • i ' • • , 573 s.299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which gdranteed a fair • A · compensation for deprivation and/or acquisition ·or propefty, Dismissing the appeals, HELD: 1: The two provisoes to sub'ciause (o) of sah-s.(I) of s. 7 of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 1948, are valid. [5810] · ;1 ll 2. The contention that reducing the compens3tion to the m1rkct '"' value plus 40% as on !st day of September, 1939 is thoroughly irrelevant to the payment of compensation_ and arbitrarily selects the date much earlier to the date of acq'uisiiion and ignores thC escalation Of price of the ~) had is without much force .. The choice of the date September !st, 1939 d.Oes not appear to be arbitrary but has a real. Dexus to the Object sought to e tie•• the 198.4 Act .. The choice of the date as !st .September 1939 is very ·relevant S.nd cannot be ~truck down as arbitrary bec~use on-o -cannot over~ loot the historical fact th~t thC Second ·World ·War· was declar'ed on September 2, 1939 and lndf~ was dragg~d intO it· by a foreign power ·on ._~eptem_ber 3,_ 1939 an~ t~e_wa( situation contributed .to the escalation in vrice _of the land .. It is however not neces~ary to examine iil depth this ': r; aspect. [577E;G] . D 3. Article ,31.B ·or the' Constitution which was added by the CODStitutioll (Firit Amendment) A.ct, '1951· provides that once. ao Act is placed iJl. the. Nint);l_ ~chedule to th~ Con~tlt:utioll -eithe_r the Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.