Case: State of Kerala and Others Etc Vs. T.N. Peter and Another Etc

building at 70 % of the market value? All three objects are public purposes and as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether it is one public purpose or the other. Art. 14 confers an individual right and in order to justify a classification there should be something which justifies a different treatment to this individual right. It seems to us that ordinarily a classification based on the public purpose is not permissible under Art. 14 for the purpose of determining compensation. The position is different when the owner of the land himself is the recipient of benefits from an improvement scheme, and the benefit to him is taken into consideration in fixing compensation. Can classifications be made on the basis of authority acquiring the land? In other words can different principles of compensation be laid if the land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust or Municipal Corporation or the Government? It seems to us that the answer is in the negative because as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other." 13. It is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated the owner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection of Article 14."The principle that may be distilled from these rulings and the basics of equality jurisprudence is that classification is not permissible for compensation purposes so long as the differentia relied on has no rational relation to the object in view viz. reduction in recompense. 14. Is it rational to pay different scales of compensation, as pointed out by Sikri, C.J. in the Nagpur Improvement Trust case, depending on whether you acquire for housing or hospital, irrigation scheme or town improvement, school building or police-station? The amount of compensation payable has no bearing on this distinction, although it is conceivable that classification for purposes of compensation may exist and in such cases the statute may be good. We are unable to discern any valid discremen in the Town Planning Act vis-a-vis the Land Acquisition Act warranting a classification in the matter of denial of solatium. 15. We uphold the Act in other respects but not when it deals invidiously between two owners based on an irrelevant criterion viz. the acquisition being for an improvement scheme. We are not to be understood to mean that the rate of compensation may not vary or must be uniform in all cases. We need not investigate this question further as it does not arise here although we are clear in our mind that under given circumstances differentiation even in the scale of compensation may comfortably comport with Art. 14. No such circumstances are present here nor pressed. Indeed, the State, realising the force of this facet of discrimination offered, expilatory fashion, both before the High Court and before us, to pay 15% solatium to obliterate the hostile distinction. 16. The core question now arises. What is the effect even if we read a discriminatory design in Sec. 34? Is plastic surgery permissible or demolition of the section inevitable? Assuming that there is an untenable discrimination in the matter of compensation does the whole of s. 34 have to be liquidated or severable portions voided? In our opinion, scuttling the section, the course the High Court has chosen, should be the last step. The Court uses its writ power with a constructive design, an affirmative slant and a sustaining bent. Even when by compulsions of inseverability, a destructive stroke becomes necessary the court minimises the injury by an intelligent containment. Law keeps alive and "operation pull down" is de mode. Viewed from this perspective, so far as we are able to see, the only discriminatory factor as between s. 34 of the Act and s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act vis-a-vis quantification of compensation is the non-payment of solatium in the former case because of the provision in s. 34(1) that s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act shall have no application. Thus, to achieve the virtue of equality and to eliminate the vice of inequality what is needed is the obliteration of s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act from s. 34(1) of the Town Planning Act. The whole of s. 34(1) does not have to be struck down. Once we excise the discriminatory and, therefore, void part in Sec. 34(1) of the Act, equality is restored. The owner will then be entitled to the same compensation, including solatium, that he may be eligible for under the Land Acquisition Act. What is rendered void by Art. 13 is only to the extent of the contravention of Art. 14. The lancet of the Court may remove the offending words and restore to constitutional health the rest of the provision.We hold that the exclusion of Sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act from sec. 34 of the Act is unconstitutional but it is severable and we sever it. The necessary consequence is that s. 34(1) will be read omitting the words and s. 25 . What follows then? Section 32 obligates the state to act under the Land Acquisition Act but we have struck down that part which excludes sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act and so, the modification no longer covers s. 25. It continues to apply to the acquisition of property under the Town Planning Act. Section 34(2) provides for compensation exactly like s. 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and, in the light of what we have just decided, s. 25(2) will also apply and "in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." 17.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]An argument was put forward that under the Land Acquisition Act there is thus a protection against unlimited uncertainty for the owners once lands are frozen in the matter of dealing with them by an initial notification. This protection against protraction and inaction on the part of the State and immobilisation of ownership is absent in the Town Planning Ac t. According to Mr. T. C. Raghavan, appearing for some respondents, this makes for arbitrariness and discrimination invalidatory of the relevant provisions of the Town Planning Act. In our view there is no substance in this submission, having regard to the specialised nature of improvement schemes and the democratic a participation in the process required in such casesMuch argument was addressed on the either or arbitrariness implicit in s. 33 of the A ct. The precise contention is that it is open to the Trust to acquire either under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act or under Chapter VII of the Town Planning Act. In the latter event, no solatium is payable while under the former statute it is a statutory obligation of the acquiring Govt. Thus, if an Authority has an option to proceed under one statute or the other and the consequences upon the owner are more onerous or less, such a facultative provision bears the lethal vice of arbitrariness in its bosom and is violative of Art. 14 and is therefore, voidWe do not accept the argument that there is a legal option for the authority to acquire either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the Town Planning Act when land is needed for a scheme. Theoretically, yes, but practically, no. Which sensible statutory functionary, responsible to the Treasury and to the community, will resort to the more expensive process under the Land Acquisition Act as against the specially designed and less costly provision under s. 34? Fanciful possibilities, freak exercise and speculative aberrations are not realistic enough for constitutional invalidation on the score of actual alter. natives or alive options, one more onerous than the otherThe same reasoning applies to the present situation. The Town Planning Act is a special statute where lands have to be acquired on a large scale and as early and quickly as possible so that schemes may be implemented with promptitude. What is more, there is a specific and purposeful provision excluding some section s of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. In such circumstances, it is incredible that the authority acting under the Act will sabotage Chapter VII, in particular s. 34, by resorting to the Kerala Land Acquisition Act in derogation of the express provision facilitating acquisition of lands on less onerous terms. He functions under the Town Planning Act, needs Lands for the schemes under that Act, has provisions for acquisition under that Act. Then would be, by reckless action, travel beyond that Act and with a view to oblige the private owner betray the public interest and resort to the power under the Land Acquisition Act, disregarding the non obstante provision in Sec. of the Act? Presumption of perversity cannot b e the foundation of unconstitutionality. Moreover, the expression, used in the context of s. 32, clearly (does not bear the meaning attributed to it by the counsel for the respondents. All that it means is that when immovable property is found necessary for the purpose of a scheme it may be acquired by the compulsory process written into s. 32. It is, as if there were only one option, not two. If the scheme is to be implemented, the mode of acquisition shall be under s. 32 and the manner of such acquisition is the same under the Land Acquisition Act minus ss. 14, 22 and 25 thereof. A slight reflection makes it clear that the mode prescribed is only one, and so the theory of alternatives one of which being mere onerous than the other, and the consequent inference of arbitrariness, cannot arise. We overrule that argument.We must notice, before we part with this point, the argument of Sri Raghavan for the respondents that the existence of alternatives is not theoretical nor chimerical but real, and proof of the pudding is in the eating. He pointed to one of the appeals in this batch where the proceedings under sec. 34 of the Act were given up, the provision of the Land Acquisition Act used, and full compensation and solatium paid to the owner. This instance gave flesh and blood to the submission about discrimination. Shri Khader, for the trust countered this argument by-stating that because the High Court struck clown t he Act and the land was needed. the only statute then available to the State was the Land Acquisition Act. So, the authority was reluctantly constrained to notify and acquire under the Land Acquisition Act. Had Sec. 34 of the Act been available, this step would not have been taken and absent Sec. 34 the argument of alternatives has no basis. We agree with this reasoning and repel the submission of arbitrary power to pick and choose. At worst, a swallow does not make a summer but we must warn that prodigal state action to favour some owner when sec. 34 has been resuscitated will be betrayal of public interest and invalidated as mala fide even at the instance of a concerned citizen. The legislature cannot be stultified by the suspicious improvidence, or worse, of the ExecutiveIt is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated the owner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection of Article 14."The principle that may be distilled from these rulings and the basics of equality jurisprudence is that classification is not permissible for compensation purposes so long as the differentia relied on has no rational relation to the object in view viz. reduction in recompenseIs it rational to pay different scales of compensation, as pointed out by Sikri, C.J. in the Nagpur Improvement Trust case, depending on whether you acquire for housing or hospital, irrigation scheme or town improvement, school building or police-station? The amount of compensation payable has no bearing on this distinction, although it is conceivable that classification for purposes of compensation may exist and in such cases the statute may be good. We are unable to discern any valid discremen in the Town Planning Act vis-a-vis the Land Acquisition Act warranting a classification in the matter of denial of solatiumWe uphold the Act in other respects but not when it deals invidiously between two owners based on an irrelevant criterion viz. the acquisition being for an improvement scheme. We are not to be understood to mean that the rate of compensation may not vary or must be uniform in all cases. We need not investigate this question further as it does not arise here although we are clear in our mind that under given circumstances differentiation even in the scale of compensation may comfortably comport with Art. 14. No such circumstances are present here nor pressed. Indeed, the State, realising the force of this facet of discrimination offered, expilatory fashion, both before the High Court and before us, to pay 15% solatium to obliterate the hostile distinctionIn our opinion, scuttling the section, the course the High Court has chosen, should be the last step. The Court uses its writ power with a constructive design, an affirmative slant and a sustaining bent. Even when by compulsions of inseverability, a destructive stroke becomes necessary the court minimises the injury by an intelligent containment. Law keeps alive and "operation pull down" is de mode. Viewed from this perspective, so far as we are able to see, the only discriminatory factor as between s. 34 of the Act and s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act vis-a-vis quantification of compensation is the non-payment of solatium in the former case because of the provision in s. 34(1) that s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act shall have no application. Thus, to achieve the virtue of equality and to eliminate the vice of inequality what is needed is the obliteration of s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act from s. 34(1) of the Town Planning Act. The whole of s. 34(1) does not have to be struck down. Once we excise the discriminatory and, therefore, void part in Sec. 34(1) of the Act, equality is restored. The owner will then be entitled to the same compensation, including solatium, that he may be eligible for under the Land Acquisition Act. What is rendered void by Art. 13 is only to the extent of the contravention of Art. 14. The lancet of the Court may remove the offending words and restore to constitutional health the rest of the provision.We hold that the exclusion of Sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act from sec. 34 of the Act is unconstitutional but it is severable and we sever it. The necessary consequence is that s. 34(1) will be read omitting the words and s. 25 . What follows then? Section 32 obligates the state to act under the Land Acquisition Act but we have struck down that part which excludes sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act and so, the modification no longer covers s. 25. It continues to apply to the acquisition of property under the Town Planning Act. Section 34(2) provides for compensation exactly like s. 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and, in the light of what we have just decided, s. 25(2) will also apply and "in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."