- (1.) SIKRI, C. J.- This petition was heard along with Civil Appeals Nos 2139-2140 of 1968. The facts are different but the principles of law to be applied are the same which we have laid down in our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2139 of 1968 = (reported in AIR 1973 SC 689).
(2.) THE facts in this petition are that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was amended by the Land Acquisition (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act 1959 (Madhya Pradesh Act V of l959) hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. By Section 3 of the impugned Act the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. in its application to Bhopal area, was amended as follows: 1. After clause (g) of Sec. 3 of the Act of 1894 a new clause was added defining "Bhopal area". 2. A new section S. 17A, was inserted in the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, giving to the Government the power to issue a direction to the Collector that it is urgently necessary to acquire immediate possession' of any building site situated in Bhopal area, and providing that upon the issue of such a direction the provisions of Section 17 would in all respects apply in the case of such site as they apply in the case of waste or arable land 3 A new proviso was added to the first clause of Sec. 23 (l). The proviso runs thus: "Provided that when the market value of any land situate in Bhopal area, in respect of which the date of publication of the notification aforesaid is after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1957 (21 of 1958), is in excess of its market-value as on the Ist day of October, 1955, the market-value thereof shall be deemed to be its market value as on the Ist day of October, 1955." A new sub-section (3) was inserted in S. 23 enjoining the Court to award a further sum not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the market value of the land acquired and an additional sum provided under sub-section (2), as the Court may think fit. "in consideration of the appreciation in the price of the land concerned by reason of the location of the Capital at Bhopal, regard being had to the situation of such land." 4. The notification to acquire the land in question under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra, dated October 3, 1962. Notification under S. 6 (1) of the said Act was published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated November 23, 1962. Thereafter, the notice under S. 9 (1) was published for general information and notices under S. 9 (3) were issued to the individual interested parties. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award in the Land Acquisition Case No. 51/LA/62 on March 25, 1963. The award was given on the basis of market value of the land as on October 1, 1955 plus 25% extra compensation, and not on the basis of the market value of the land on or about the date of acquisition, by virtue of the provisions of S. 3 of the Land Acquisition (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1959.
(3.) IT is alleged inter alia that Bhopal was made Capital of Madhya Pradesh on November 1, 1956. We were referred to the report of the States Reorganisation Commission, 1955. Para 486 states: "486. The new State, which can appropriately be described, as Madhya Pradesh, will be a compact unit. IT will bring almost the whole of Bundalkhand and Baghelkhand under one administration. Jabalpur will be situated at a central place in this unit and has or will soon have some important facilities like water supply and availability of electrical power. IT will, in our opinion be a suitable capital." This report was submitted on September 30, 1955. IT is quite clear from this para that on the date of the report the proposed capital was Jabalpur and there could thus be no speculation in land before the announcement of Bhopal as capital. In view of these facts, it is submitted in ground (viii) of the petition that ''the impugned Act violates Art. 14 of the Constitution as there is no rational classification on the basis of which the prices of Bhopal area have not been determined by the principle by which the market prices of other places would be determined." It is further submitted that ''there can be no rational basis to differentiate between Bhopal and other areas for award of compensation merely because Bhopal was made Capital. The theory that in view of Capital, there were speculative prices at Bhopal and the prices at any given time might not reflect the real price, is neither rational nor reasonable." It also alleged that the date, October 1, 1955, is an arbitrary date for the purpose of fixing the market value.;