UNION OF INDIA versus CHAJJU RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 16-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
.. 
-
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
CHAJJU RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL, S.B. SINHA AND 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Defence of India Act, 1971: 
A 
B 
Land acquisition-Compensation-Provisions under the Land Acquisition C 
Act vis-a-vis Defence of India Act-Applicability of-Provision of Solatium 
and interest thereon available in Land Acquisition Act-Absence of such 
.. provisions in the Defence of India Act-Whether violative of Article 14-
Held: Since Defence of India Act is a self contained code which lays down the 
procedure and machinery for determining compensation in respect of land D 
requisitioned, provisions in the Land Acquisition Act would not ipso facto 
read into the Defence of India Act-Provisions under the two Acts are absolutely 
distinct and different-In the D.l. Act compensation to be payable in lieu of 
keeping the owner out of possession during the period of requisitioning of 
land-Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act determining value of 
lands from the date of issuance. of Acquisition Notification since processing E 
takes long time thereby provisions of solatium and interest inserted-Thus 
classification under the two Acts based on intelligible differentia has rational 
nexus to the objects of the Acts~Hence classification reasonable and valid--
Certain provisions of law available in one Act not necessarily be available in 
the other Act-Hence DI Act not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of F 
India-Constitution of India-Article 14-lnterpretation of Statutes-Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Recovery of solatium and interest-Held: Since the amount is small and 
was paid long back, the same need not be recovered-Directions not to be 
treated as precedent. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 
'solatium '-Meaning and scope of in the context of Land Acquisition 
Acts. 
647 
H 
A 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
Certain lands of the respondent were requisitioned for establishing 
a military cantonment under the provisions of Defence of India Act in the 
year 1971. The proceedings for compulsory acquisition of such lands were 
initiated in the year 1975 and compensation determined. Dissatisfied with 
the amount of compensation, respondent appealed to the competent 
B authority for a Reference to arbitrator. Since the authority did not refer 
the matter to arbitrator, respondent filed a writ petition challenging the 
validity of the Defence of India Act on the ground that absence of the 
c 
provisions for grant of solatium and interest therein renders the Act 
unconstitutional. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal and the connected appeals . 
• 
In these appeals, the questions which arose for consideration before 
the Constitution Bench were: whether the provisions of solatium and 
interest are to be read into other Acquisitioning Acts; whether the 
provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act are to be read into 
the Defence of India Act and whether the Act would l.ie declared ultra vi res 
D Article 14 of the Constitution of India for having no provisions for solatium 
and interest. The Constitution Bench referred first two questions to 3-Judge 
Bench. The said Bench observed that the provisions with regard to solatium 
and interest in Land Acquisition Act are to be read into the provisions of 
other Acquisition Acts (Nagpur Improvement Trust etc. v. Vasantrao and Ors. 
E etc.) but not the provision of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 
(Dayal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) The question regarding 
the constitutional validity of the Defence of India Act on the premise that 
absence of provisions relating to payment of solatium and interest thereon 
for acquisition of land, would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India 
came before the Constitution Bench. 
F 
G 
It was contended for the appellants that since schemes for acquisition 
as in the Defence of India Act and the Land Acquisition Act are distinct 
and different, the provisions of solatium and interest need not be available 
in the Defence of India Act. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that since owner of 
the land was not concerned as regards the purpose of acquisition under 
the Land Acquisition Act and the Defence of India Act, the classification 
under these Acts cannot be said to be rational in the matter of payment ,?f 
compensation in lieu of acquisition; and that non-payment of solat

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