Review jurisdiction and Article 14 scrutiny invalidate discriminatory land acquisition interest reduction

A review petition may be entertained where counsel's mistake led to omission of a material statutory provision from the Court's notice, because that can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; the petitions were therefore maintainable. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also held that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, as adopted in Andhra Pradesh, was unconstitutional in so far as it reduced interest to 4% for acquisitions for the Central Government, because the differential rate lacked intelligible differentia and rational nexus and was discriminatory under Article 14. The amendment was struck down and compensation interest remained governed by the earlier higher rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petitions were maintainable on the ground of mistake of counsel and error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, as adopted in Andhra Pradesh, was violative of Article 14 in reducing interest to 4 per cent for acquisitions for the Central Government.

Issue (i): whether the review petitions were maintainable on the ground of mistake of counsel and error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: A review may be entertained where a material statutory provision was not brought to the Court's notice due to counsel's mistake, since such omission can amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The existence of administrative instructions did not displace the statutory scheme, but the earlier omission justified reconsideration within the limits of review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The review petitions were maintainable and were rightly entertained.

Issue (ii): whether the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1953, as adopted in Andhra Pradesh, was violative of Article 14 in reducing interest to 4 per cent for acquisitions for the Central Government.

Analysis: The amended provisions reducing the rate of interest from 6 per cent to 4 per cent were examined against the equality clause. The Court found no intelligible differentia or rational nexus supporting the differential treatment, and held that administrative manuals could not control statutory interpretation. The distinction in rates for Central Government acquisitions was treated as discriminatory and unsupported by the stated legislative purpose.

Conclusion: The amendment was void as being violative of Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The matter was reopened in review and the impugned amendment was struck down, resulting in relief to the petitioners with the compensation interest governed by the pre-existing higher rate.

Ratio Decidendi: A review is maintainable for a material omission caused by counsel's mistake where it results in an error apparent on the face of the record, and a statutory amendment that creates an arbitrary differential in compensation without intelligible differentia or rational nexus is unconstitutional under Article 14.

---