Case: The State of Madras &amp; Others Vs. D. Namasivaya Mudaliar &amp; Others

call for comment in this case. But any principle for determination of compensation denying to the owner all increments in value of land between a fixed date and the date of issue of the notification under S. 4(1), prima facic, be regarded as denying to him the true equivalent of the land which is expropriated and it is for the State to show that fixation of compensation on the market value on an anterior date does not amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee. No materials have been placed by the State before this Court which would support any such case.6. It is true that the Province of Madras had issued a "Press-Note" in 1948 announcing that the Government proposed to undertake legislation reserving the power to compel any person who had purchased land in the lignite bearing areas to sell such land to them at the rate at which it was purchased. The only intimation given thereby to the owners of lands was that the Government may undertake legislation for the purpose of purchasing land at the price at which speculators in land may have purchased them. There is no evidence that any scheme for acquisition of land for mining of lignite was prepared in 1947, by the Government of Madras. The mining operations in 1947 must, in the very nature of things, have been exploratory. The statement of objects and reasons for the Act clearly discloses that initially mining operations were started by the Government on a small area. Assuming that in appropriate cases, fixation of a date anterior to the publication of the notification under S. 4(1) for ascertainment of market value of the land to be acquired, may not always be regarded as a violation of the constitutional guarantee, in the absence of evidence that compensation assessed on the basis of market value on such anterior date, awards to the expropriated owner a just monetary value of his property at the date on which his interest is extinguished, the provisions of the Act arbitrarily fixing compensation based on the market value at a date many years before the notification under S. 4 (1) was issued, cannot be regarded as valid. It is a matter of common knowledge that since the termination of hostilities in the last World War there has been an upward tendency in land values resulting in appreciation in some areas many times the original value of lands. No attempt has been made by the State to prove that appreciation in the market value of lands in the area since April, 1947 was solely attributable to a scheme of land acquisition of lignite bearing lands. To deny to the owner of the land compensation at rates which justly indemnify him for his loss by awarding him compensation at rates prevailing ten years before the date on which the notification under S.4(1) was issued amounts in the circumstances to a flagrant infringement of the fundamental right of the owner, of the land under Art. 31(2) as it stood when the Act was enacted.7. The validity of the provisions relating to fixation of compensation had to be adjudged in the light of the extent of the constitutional protection guaranteed at the date when the Act was brought into operation, and any restriction of the constitutional protection by subsequent amendment of Art. 31(2) which has not been given retrospective effect, must be entirely ignored.8. The provision which denies to the owner of land compensation for non-agricultural improvements made by him since April 28, 1947, also infringes the protection of Art. 31(2). Under S. 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act land is defined as including benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, and when under S.4 (1) land is notified for acquisition, the acquisition is of the entirety of the interest of the owner in the land including under ground rights if any crops, trees and superstructures. By the Madras Act the owner is deprived of the value of all non-agricultural improvements including the value of non-agricultural buildings, erected on the land after April 28, 1947. It is not clear whether the non-agricultural buildings constructed after the specified date are forfeited to the State on acquisition, or the owner is entitled to remove them. In either case the owner is deprived of just value of his land including the superstructure, of which he is expropriated. Denial to the owner of the land of the value of the structures constructed up by him (even of those put up after April 28, 1947, with the knowledge that the Government may undertake legislation for the purpose of compulsory acquisition of the land) would still be denying to him just compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of compulsory acquisition of his holding and would amount to infringement of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution.9. We are therefore of the view that the provisions which require the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court to assess compensation of the land compulsorily acquired only on the market value of the land on April 28, 1947, together with the value of agricultural improvements on the land commenced, made or effected after that date, and before the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4(1), without taking into consideration the value of non-agricultural improvements made after that date, must be regarded as invalid.10. We are not called upon to express any opinion on the question whether the power reserved under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by S. 2 of Madras Act XI of l953 to take the possession of lands under the emergency clause for the purpose of working lignite mines in the areas to which the of Madras Lignite (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1953, extends is invalid. No argument has been advanced by either side before us on this question. Nor was the High Court called upon to consider the validity of that provision.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]That principle must apply in adjudging the validity, of Madras Act XI of 1953. It may be assumed that April 28, 1947, was the date on which lignite deposits were discovered in the areas to which the Act is extended. But there is no true relation between the acquisition of the lands in these cases and fixation of compensation based on their value on the market rate prevailing on April 28, 1947. Fixation of compensation for compulsory acquisition of lands notified many years after the date, on the market value prevailing on the date on which lignite was discovered is wholly arbitrary and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Art. 31 (2) as it stood before it was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1956. If the owner is by a constitutional guarantee protected against expropriation of his property otherwise than for a just monetary equivalent, it would be impossible to hold that a law which authorises acquisition of land not for its true value, but for value frozen on some date anterior to the acquisition, on the assumption that all appreciation in its value since that date is attributable to purposes for which the State may use the land at some future date, must be regarded as infringing the fundamentalour view this observation cannot assist the State of Madras in saving the provisions of Madras Act XI of 1933 from the vice of infringing the constitutional guarantee under Art. 31(2) of the Constitution. The right which is guaranteed is undoubtedly the right to just indemnification for loss, and appreciation in the market value of the land because of the proposed acquisition may in assessing compensation be ignored. Even the Land Acquisition Act provides for assessment of compensation on the basis of market value of the land not on the date on which interest of the owner of the land is extinguished under S. 16, but on the basis of market value prevailing on the date on which the notification under S. 4(1) is issued. Whether this rule in all cases irrespective of subsequent development ensures just indemnification of expropriated owner so as to be immune from attack, does call for comment in this case. But any principle for determination of compensation denying to the owner all increments in value of land between a fixed date and the date of issue of the notification under S. 4(1), prima facic, be regarded as denying to him the true equivalent of the land which is expropriated and it is for the State to show that fixation of compensation on the market value on an anterior date does not amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee. No materials have been placed by the State before this Court which would support any such case.6. It is true that the Province of Madras had issued a "Press-Note" in 1948 announcing that the Government proposed to undertake legislation reserving the power to compel any person who had purchased land in the lignite bearing areas to sell such land to them at the rate at which it was purchased. The only intimation given thereby to the owners of lands was that the Government may undertake legislation for the purpose of purchasing land at the price at which speculators in land may have purchased them. There is no evidence that any scheme for acquisition of land for mining of lignite was prepared in 1947, by the Government of Madras. The mining operations in 1947 must, in the very nature of things, have been exploratory. The statement of objects and reasons for the Act clearly discloses that initially mining operations were started by the Government on a small area. Assuming that in appropriate cases, fixation of a date anterior to the publication of the notification under S. 4(1) for ascertainment of market value of the land to be acquired, may not always be regarded as a violation of the constitutional guarantee, in the absence of evidence that compensation assessed on the basis of market value on such anterior date, awards to the expropriated owner a just monetary value of his property at the date on which his interest is extinguished, the provisions of the Act arbitrarily fixing compensation based on the market value at a date many years before the notification under S. 4 (1) was issued, cannot be regarded as valid. It is a matter of common knowledge that since the termination of hostilities in the last World War there has been an upward tendency in land values resulting in appreciation in some areas many times the original value of lands. No attempt has been made by the State to prove that appreciation in the market value of lands in the area since April, 1947 was solely attributable to a scheme of land acquisition of lignite bearing lands. To deny to the owner of the land compensation at rates which justly indemnify him for his loss by awarding him compensation at rates prevailing ten years before the date on which the notification under S.4(1) was issued amounts in the circumstances to a flagrant infringement of the fundamental right of the owner, of the land under Art. 31(2) as it stood when the Act was enacted.The provision which denies to the owner of land compensation for non-agricultural improvements made by him since April 28, 1947, also infringes the protection of Art. 31(2). Under S. 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act land is defined as including benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth, and when under S.4 (1) land is notified for acquisition, the acquisition is of the entirety of the interest of the owner in the land including under ground rights if any crops, trees and superstructures. By the Madras Act the owner is deprived of the value of all non-agricultural improvements including the value of non-agricultural buildings, erected on the land after April 28, 1947. It is not clear whether the non-agricultural buildings constructed after the specified date are forfeited to the State on acquisition, or the owner is entitled to remove them. In either case the owner is deprived of just value of his land including the superstructure, of which he is expropriated. Denial to the owner of the land of the value of the structures constructed up by him (even of those put up after April 28, 1947, with the knowledge that the Government may undertake legislation for the purpose of compulsory acquisition of the land) would still be denying to him just compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of compulsory acquisition of his holding and would amount to infringement of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution.9. We are therefore of the view that the provisions which require the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court to assess compensation of the land compulsorily acquired only on the market value of the land on April 28, 1947, together with the value of agricultural improvements on the land commenced, made or effected after that date, and before the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4(1), without taking into consideration the value of non-agricultural improvements made after that date, must be regarded as invalid.10. We are not called upon to express any opinion on the question whether the power reserved under S.17 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by S. 2 of Madras Act XI of l953 to take the possession of lands under the emergency clause for the purpose of working lignite mines in the areas to which the of Madras Lignite (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1953, extends is invalid. No argument has been advanced by either side before us on this question. Nor was the High Court called upon to consider the validity of that provision.