UNION OF INDIA versus KAMLABHAI HARJIWANDAS PAREKH & OTHERS

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 07-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
" 
( 
" 
' . 
J 
-~ 
, 
' 
A 
c 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
KAMLABHAI HARJIWANDAS PAREKH & OTHERS 
September 7, 1967 
IK. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, 
s. 8(3)(b"-Compensation-Arbitrator 
given option to fix 
market 
value of property at tJie date of acquisition or twice the market 
ralue of the property at the time of requisition whichever was less ' 
-Section whether void as violative of Constitution of India, Art. 
31(~). 
A plot of land in Bombay belonging to the husband of the first 
respondent was requisitioned by Government for military purposes 
in 1942 under r. 75A(l) of the Defence of India Rules. 
In 1952 a 
notification was issued under s. 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acqui· 
sition of Immovable Property Act enacted on March 14, 1952. Ac-
cording to the notification the land was to be acquired by Govern-
ment and would vest in the Government from the date of the noti-
D fication. In the absence of an agreement between the parties as to 
compensation, the Chief Judge of Small Causes, Bombay was ap. 
pointed as arbitrator under s. 8 of the Act. Shortly thereafter the 
first respondent preferred a petition in the High Court wherein it 
was prayed that s. 8(3) of the Act should be declared ultra vires, 
and the arbitrator should be directed to forbear from 
awarding 
compensation on the principles laid down in the section. Under the 
impugned section the .arbitrator could award as compensation the 
E market value of the property at the date of acquisition or twice the 
market value of the property at the time of requisition, 'whichever. 
was less. After the hearing before the High Court the challenge 
was limited to s. 8(3)(b) only, The High Court held s. 8(3)(b) to· be 
ultTa vires Art. 32 of the Constitution and as such void. The Union 
of India appealed with certificate under Art. 133(1\(b). 
HELD: (i) The Act was passed before the Fourth Amendment 
F Act of the Constitution in 1955, Its vires were to be decided on the 
anvil of the Constitution as it stood before the said amendment. 
[467H] 
G 
B 
(ii) The mode prescribed in cl. (b) of s. 8(3) is arbitrary, 
It 
has no relation to the value of the land on the date of the notice 
under s. 7 which may be. many years after the date of requisition. 
It is impossible to say that the date of requisition has or can have 
any connection with the date of acquisition under s. 7 In assessing 
the just equivalent of the value of the property at twice the price 
which the r<;<iuisitioned property would have fetched in· the open 
market had 1t been sold on the date of requisition the arbitrator 
would be acting arbitrarily inasmuch as he would' be proceeding 
on a formula for which there is no rational basis. [ 472D-473B] 
. 
Clause (bl of s. 8(3) leaves no choice of .ai;sessjng the value 
in terms of cl. (al. The expression 'have regard to' in sub-cl. (e) 
of sub-s. (I). of s. 8 therefore did not give the arbitrator any free-
dom of considering the two modes laid down in sub-<; 
(3) and 
accepting the one which he thought fair. [473C] 
· 
State of .West Bengal ·v. Mrs .. Bela Baner_jee and Ors .. [1954] 
S.C.R.. 558: State. of Madra.s ".· D. Nam~va11a Mudaliar, [1964] 6 
S.C.R. 936; P. V.a3ravalu MU!ialiar v. Special Deputy Collector, [1965] 
4Gi 
Sl'PREllE C0L'R1' REPORTS 
[1968] l 8.C.R. 
1 S.C.R. 614; N. B. Jeejeebhoy v. Assistant Collector, [1965] 1 S.C.R. A. 
636: and Ruots of Gerabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi. 70 I.A. 
1~9. considered. 
East Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. 
v. 
State of Madras, 
[1963] 2 S.C.R. 747. distinguished. 
In holding that the petitioner before it was not guilty of any 
hches the High Court was deciding a matter within its discretion. B 
This Court will not normallv interfere with the exercioe of such 
discretion. [ 475C] 
-
Zacharia v. Republic of Cyprus [1963] 
-~.C. 634, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1564 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 7, 1964 c: 
of the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition No. 378 of 1962. 
G. N. Dikshit, S. P. Nayar for R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. 
S. Sorabji, A. J. Rana, P. C. Blwrtari and J. B. Dadachanji 
for respondent No. I. · 
I. N. Shroff, for intervener No. I. 
J. B. Dadachanji for intervener No. 2. 
The Judgment Of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. This is an appeal by a certificate under Art. 
D 
l 33(l)(c) of the Cons

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