STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. versus T. N. PETER & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 01-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

290 
A 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
T. N. PETER & ANR. ETC. 
April I 1980 
• 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHrnNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Cochin Town Planning Act-S.34(1) validity of. 
The Cochin Town Planning Act in particular contemplates the creation of 
a town planning trust, the preparation of town planning schemes (section 12) 
acquisition of lands in this behalf (section 32) compensation for such compul· 
C 
sory taking (section 34) and modifications in the manner of acquisition and 
the mode of compensation in the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. 
The petitioners' writ petitions challenging the validity of the Town Plan-
ning Act were allowed by the High Court on the gronnd that the provisions 
of Section 34(1) and 34(2A) were unconstitutional being violative of article 
14 of the Constitution. 
D 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that by the use of the provisions 
for making schemes under section 8 or section 10, the authority may indefi-
nitely immobilize the owner's ability to deal with his 
land since section 15 
clamps restrictions and this is unreasonable. 
HELD : 1. City improvement schemes have facets which mark them out 
from other land acquisition proposals. To miss the massive import of the 
z 
specialised nature of important schemes is to expose one's innocence of the-
dynam.ics of urban development. The statute has left it to the government 
to deal expeditiously with the scheme and there are sufficient guidelines in 
the Act not to make the gap between the draft scheme and governmental 
sanction too procrastinatory to be arbitrary. [294 G-H] 
F 
~G 
H 
2. Section 12(6) imparts :finality to the scheme and this corresponds to the 
declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. A conspectus of the 
relevant provisions of the Act makes it clear that improvement scheme cannot 
hang on indefinitely and an outside limit of two years is given for the prepa-
ration and publication of draft schemes from the time the initial resolution 
to make or adopt the scheme is passed by the Municipal 
Council. Concept-
wise and strategy-wise dt:velopment schemes stand on a separate footing and 
classification of town planning schemes differently from the routine projects 
demanding compulsory acquisition may certainly 
be justified as blised 
on 
rational differentia which has a reasonable relation to the end in view namely 
improvement of towns and disciplining their d'evelopment. (295 F-G] 
3. There is no substance in the argument that if the land is acquired under 
the Town Planning Act no solatium is payable while if the land is acquired 
under the Land Acquisition Act it is a statnlory obligation of the acquiring 
government to pay solatium. The 
Town Planning Act is a special statute 
where lands have to be acquired on large scale and as early and as quickly 
as possible so that schemes may be implemented with promptitude. There is-
in addition a specific and, purposeful provision excluding some sections of the-
;I 
STATE V. T. N. PETER 
291 
Kerala Land Acquisition Act. In such circumstances it is incredible that the 
A 
authority acting under the Act will sabotage chapter VII, in particular section 
34, by resorting to the Kerala Land Acquisition Act in derogation of the ex-
press provision facilitating acquisition of lands on less onerous terms. [299C-D] 
Magan/al v. Municipal Corporation, [1975] I S.C.R. p. 23, referred to. 
4. The amount of compensation payable has no bearing on the distinction 
B 
whether the lands are acquired for housing or hospital, irrigation schemes or 
town improvement, school building or police station. 
S(a) 
The exclusion of 
· section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act from section 34 of the Act is unconsti-
tutional. 
But it is severable. [302G] 
(b) The only discriminatory factor as between section 34 of the Act and 
section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act vis-a~vis quantification of compensation 
C 
is the non-payment of solatium in the former case because of the provisions 
of section 34(1) and that section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act shall have 
no application. 
To achieve the virtue of equality and eliminate the vice of 
inequality what is needed is the obliteration of section 25 of the Land Acquisi-
tion Act from section 34(1) of the Town Planning Act. 
The whole of section 
34(1) does not have to be struck down. 
Once the discriminatory and void 
part in section 34(1) of the Act is excised equality is restored. The owner will 
D 
then be entitled to the same comp

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