1964 (10) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Amending Act under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. Infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Applicability of Article 31-A of the Constitution.
4. Applicability of Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Amending Act under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The primary issue was whether the Amending Act complied with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 299(2) stipulated that no law authorizing compulsory acquisition of land could be made unless it provided for the payment of compensation and specified the principles for determining such compensation. The Court noted that the Amending Act fixed the compensation based on the market value of the land as of January 1, 1948, irrespective of the actual date of acquisition. This was deemed arbitrary and not a "just equivalent" of what the owner was deprived of, as per the precedent set in *The State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bela Banerjee*. The Court held that the Amending Act was void from its inception as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 299, rendering it a still-born law.

2. Infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The High Court had initially held that the Act was hit by Article 14 but was saved by Article 31-A. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue since the Amending Act was already deemed void under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

3. Applicability of Article 31-A of the Constitution:
The Court examined whether Article 31-A, which protects certain laws from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights, could save the Amending Act. The Court concluded that Article 31-A could not revive a law that was void at its inception. The analogy between a fundamental right under Article 31(2) and the conditions laid down in Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, was found irrelevant in the context of a pre-Constitution void law. Therefore, Article 31-A did not apply.

4. Applicability of Article 31(5)(a) of the Constitution:
The Court also considered whether Article 31(5)(a), which protects existing laws from being challenged under Article 31(2), could save the Amending Act. The Court held that for a law to be an "existing law," it must have been validly made by a competent legislature. Since the Amending Act was void from the beginning, it did not qualify as an "existing law" under Article 31(5)(a). Additionally, the Court noted that Article 31(6) provided specific conditions under which non-compliance with Section 299 could be excused, but the Amending Act did not meet these conditions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Amending Act was void from its inception due to non-compliance with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Consequently, the lands acquired should be valued in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The decree of the High Court was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the District Court for disposal in accordance with the law. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.