N B JEEJEEBHOY Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR THANA PRANT THANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay modifying those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, in a reference arising out of land acquisition proceedings.

(2.) On May 28, 1948, the Government of Bombay issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notifying that certain lands belonging to the appellant, along with lands belonging to others, were likely to be needed for the Government Housing Scheme, a public purpose. Notifications under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on July 14, 1949, August 1, 1949 and August 11, 1949. On December 31, 1949, possession of the lands so notified was taken under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the said lands into six groups based upon certain criteria. Some of the lands of the appellant fell in group Nos. 4 and 5, and his khajan lands fell in group No. 6. He valued the khajan lands at Rs. 500 / - per acre, i.e., at anna 1 pies 74 per sq. yard, and the lands in group No. 4 at Rs. 1-6-0 per sq. yard, and those in group No. 4 at Rs.1-4-0 per sq. yard. Though the appellant claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 44,02,858-8-0 as compensation for the land and Rs. 10,696-14-0 as loss of assessment, the said Officer awarded a total amount of Rs.1,31,096-4-0 as compensation. The appellant filed an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the District Court questioning the correctness of the compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. His reference was numbered as Reference No. 55 of 1953. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, heard that reference along with others made at the instance of different claimants and gave his award on November 30, 1953. The learned Civil Judge increased the compensation in respect of the khajan lands from 1 anna and 7 1/2 pies per sq. yard to as. -/8/- per sq. yard, and in respect of lands in groups 4 and 5 he increased the compensation by as. -/2/- per sq. yard; in the result, he awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,97,676-15-0 instead of Rs.1,31,096-4-0 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The point to be noticed is that the learned Civil Judge valued the lands as on January 1, 1948, though the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on May 28, 1948, as under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948 (Bombay Act IV of 1948) hereinafter called the Amending Act, the former date was the crucial date for awarding compensation. He further did not award the additional 15 per cent of the market value of the lands as solatium for compulsory acquisition, as under the Amending Act, unlike under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no solatium was provided for. Both the appellant and the respondent preferred appeals to the High Court against the said award, the appeal filed by the appellant being First Appeal No. 611 of 1954 and that filed by the respondent being First Appeal No. 318 of 1954. The High Court heard the said appeals along with the appeals filed by other claimants and delivered a common judgment on March 26, 1958. The High Court held that though the Act was hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, it was saved by Art. 31-A thereof and that under S. 229 of the Government of India Act, l935, which governed the statute the compensation for compulsory acquisition did not necessarily mean equivalent in value to the owner of what he had been deprived and, therefore, the Amending Act was valid. In the result, it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent by restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the khajan lands and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence the appeals.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of Mr. Bhat for the appellant, Mr. Palkhivala for the interveners, the Attorney-General for the respondents and the counsel representing the Advocates-General of some of the States to whom notices were issued by the Court.