Defence of India Act compensation scheme upheld as valid: no Article 14 breach from omitting solatium and interest.

The Defence of India Act, 1971 was treated as a self-contained code for requisition and acquisition of immovable property, so its compensation scheme under Section 31 was not comparable to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Because the acquired property was already under requisition and in Government possession, the basis for compensation differed materially from acquisition of property taken directly from the owner, where solatium and interest addressed delay and date-specific valuation. The classification between the two statutes was held to rest on intelligible differentia and to have a rational relation to the legislative object, so the omission of solatium and interest was not violative of Article 14.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absence of a provision for solatium and interest in the Defence of India Act, 1971, while determining compensation for acquisition of requisitioned property, rendered the statutory scheme violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Act was held to be a self-contained code governing requisition and acquisition of immovable property and compensation therefor. The compensation mechanism under Section 31 was not found to be comparable with the scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because acquisition under the Act concerned property already under requisition and out of the owner's possession, with the Government in possession and enjoyment during the requisition period. The basis for compensation was therefore materially different from that under the Land Acquisition Act, where solatium and interest were introduced to address delay and the date-specific valuation structure. The classification between acquisitions under the two enactments was held to rest on intelligible differentia and to bear a rational relation to the object of the legislation.

Conclusion: The omission of solatium and interest in the Defence of India Act, 1971 was not unconstitutional, and the challenge based on Article 14 failed.

---