Case: Union Of India Vs. Kamlabhai Harjiwandas Parekh &amp; Others

clause stood by itself, and satisfied article 31(2) and the tests formulated in Bela Banerjees case, 1954 SCR 558 = (AIR 1954 SC 170 ) is of no substance. The passage in the judgment of this Court in 1964-6 SCR 936 = (AIR 1965 SC 190 ) (supra) at page 944 where reference was made to the fact that even under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 notification under Section 4 might be followed by a long interval before acquisition under Section 16 took place does not support the contention of the appellant. There this Court observed that the fixing of an anterior date for arriving at the market value of the land did not ipso facto invalidate the acquisition, but that there might be circumstances which would justify such a fixation; and it was there pointed out that it was for the State to show that fixation of compensation at the market value of an anterior date did not amount to violation of the constitutional guarantee. This in our opinion, the appellant has signally failed to do. 22. This case cannot be compared with the case of West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. v. State of Madras, 1963-2 SCR 747 = (AIR 1962 SC 1753 ) where the person to be compensated was given the right to choose among several methods of valuation prescribed by Section 5 of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act of 1954. In that case also, the validity of the Madras Act had to be examined with reference to Article 31 (2) before its amendment in 1955. Section 5 of the Madras Act provided that the compensation payable to a licensee on whom an order had been served under Section 4 or whose undertaking had been taken over before the commencement of the Act, would be determined under any of the Bases A, B and C specified by the Section as might be chosen under Section 8. Then followed detailed provisions about these three Bases. The Court found that "in none of the three bases does the Legislature refer to the market value of the undertaking." But according to the Court:"that itself cannot justify the argument that what is intended to be paid by way of compensation must necessarily mean much less than the market value. The failure of the legislature to refer to the fair market value cannot in our opinion, be regarded as conclusive or even presumptive evidence of the fact that what is intended to be paid under Section 5 does not amount to a just equivalent of the undertaking taken over. After all, in considering the question as to whether compensation payable under one or the other of the Bases amounts to just equivalent, we must try to assess what would be payable under the said basis." 23. The argument on behalf of the appellant that the basis did not provide for the payment of just equivalent could not be accepted by this Court because of the fact that the appellant had produced no material on which its plea could be sustained. In this case, however, there is no such difficulty.Clause (a) of Section 8 (3) lays down a principle aimed at giving the owner of the land something which approximates its just equivalent on the date of acquisition. Clause (b) however directs the arbitrator to measure the price arrived at in terms of Clause (a) with twice the amount of money which the requisitioned property would have fetched if it had been sold on the date of requisition and to ignore the excess of the price computed in terms of clause (a) over that in terms of clause (b). 24. The position bears a close similarity with the facts in Bela Banerjees case, 1954 SCR 558 : (AIR 1954 SC 170 ) (supra) where the legislature directed that the excess of the value of the land arrived at in terms of the Land Acquisition Act over the value as on the 31st December, 1946 was to be ignored. The basis provided by Clause (b) has nothing to do with the just equivalent of the land on the date of acquisition nor is there any principle for such a basis. We cannot therefore accept the proposition that the impugned clause satisfies the requirements of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. 25. The only other contention which remains to be noted is that the High Court should have refused relief on the ground of delay in making the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. This was turned down by the High Court and it was pointed out that although the original acquisition was made on 4th April 1953, so far as compensation was concerned, the arbitrator was appointed on 21st June, 1961. We were informed that the Collector assessed the compensation on July 2, 1962 and the petitioner approached the Court on September 18, 1962. It was held by the High Court that in the case of an infringement of a fundamental right under the Constitution, mere delay would hardly affect the maintainability of the petition. The High Court was not satisfied that there was delay and said :In any case haying regard to the importance of the points raised and, assuming that there was delay, we would certainly condone the delay." 26. In appeal we do not feel disposed to take a different view. If the High Court had any discretion in the matter- and it is not suggested that it had not-the exercise of such discretion ought not to be overruled by us unless we are satisfied that the High Court had "acted on some wrong principle or committed some error of law or ailed to consider matters which demand consideration". This is the principle which the House of Lords in England have always followed as observed by Viscount Simonds in Zacharia v. Republic of Cyprus, 1963 AC 634 at p. 661 and nothing has been shown to us as to why we should adopt a different principle. 27.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. The Act was passed before the Fourth Amendment Act of the Constitution in 1955. Its vires is to be decided on the anvil of the Constitution as it stood before the said amendment. Several decisions of this Court have laid down the principles for testing the vires of State Acts providing for compensation for acquisition of land for public purposes17. Inassessing the just equivalent of the value of the property at twice the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market if it had 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 basisThis case cannot be compared with the case of West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co. v. State of Madras, 1963-2 SCR 747   = (AIR 1962 SC 1753  ) where the person to be compensated was given the right to choose among several methods of valuation prescribed by Section 5 of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act of 1954. In that case also, the validity of the Madras Act had to be examined with reference to Article 31 (2) before its amendment in 1955. Section 5 of the Madras Act provided that the compensation payable to a licensee on whom an order had been served under Section 4 or whose undertaking had been taken over before the commencement of the Act, would be determined under any of the Bases A, B and C specified by the Section as might be chosen under Section 8The argument on behalf of the appellant that the basis did not provide for the payment of just equivalent could not be accepted by this Court because of the fact that the appellant had produced no material on which its plea could be sustained. In this case, however, there is no such difficulty.Clause (a) of Section 8 (3) lays down a principle aimed at giving the owner of the land something which approximates its just equivalent on the date of acquisition. Clause (b) however directs the arbitrator to measure the price arrived at in terms of Clause (a) with twice the amount of money which the requisitioned property would have fetched if it had been sold on the date of requisition and to ignore the excess of the price computed in terms of clause (a) over that in terms of clause (b).The position bears a close similarity with the facts in Bela Banerjees case, 1954 SCR 558  : (AIR 1954 SC 170  ) (supra) where the legislature directed that the excess of the value of the land arrived at in terms of the Land Acquisition Act over the value as on the 31st December, 1946 was to be ignored. The basis provided by Clause (b) has nothing to do with the just equivalent of the land on the date of acquisition nor is there any principle for such a basis. We cannot therefore accept the proposition that the impugned clause satisfies the requirements of Article 31 (2) of the ConstitutionThe only other contention which remains to be noted is that the High Court should have refused relief on the ground of delay in making the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. This was turned down by the High Court and it was pointed out that although the original acquisition was made on 4th April 1953, so far as compensation was concerned, the arbitrator was appointed on 21st June, 1961. We were informed that the Collector assessed the compensation on July 2, 1962 and the petitioner approached the Court on September 18, 1962. It was held by the High Court that in the case of an infringement of a fundamental right under the Constitution, mere delay would hardly affect the maintainability of the petition. The High Court was not satisfied that there was delay and said :In any case haying regard to the importance of the points raised and, assuming that there was delay, we would certainly condone the delay."In appeal we do not feel disposed to take a different view. If the High Court had any discretion in the matter- and it is not suggested that it had not-the exercise of such discretion ought not to be overruled by us unless we are satisfied that the High Court had "acted on some wrong principle or committed some error of law or ailed to consider matters which demand consideration". This is the principle which the House of Lords in England have always followed as observed by Viscount Simonds inZacharia v. Republic of Cyprus, 1963 AC 634   at p. 661and nothing has been shown to us as to why we should adopt a different principle.