1992 (9) TMI 375 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of property acquisition law, emphasizes legislative intent.

Union of India (UOI) Versus Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by Lrs.

Union of India (UOI) Versus Hari Krishan Khosla (Dead) by Lrs. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The effect of the inclusion of the Act in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:The primary contention was that Section 8(3)(a) of the Act is discriminatory as it does not provide for solatium and interest similar to the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the lack of provision for solatium and interest under the Act was discriminatory and violative of Article 14.The Supreme Court analyzed several precedents, including the Nagpur Improvement Trust case, which held that different principles of compensation for land acquired for different public purposes or by different authorities could not be justified under Article 14. However, the Court distinguished the present case from those precedents, noting that the requisitioned property was already under the possession and enjoyment of the government, which is a significant factor differentiating it from non-requisitioned property.The Court emphasized that the absence of solatium in the Act is indicative of legislative intent, stressing the expressions 'just and circumstances of each case' in Section 8(1)(a). The term 'open market' in Section 8(3)(a) suggests a bargain between a free buyer and a free seller, unfettered by the consideration of requisition and subsequent acquisition.The Court concluded that the failure to provide solatium and interest under Section 8(3)(a) does not make it discriminatory. Therefore, Section 8(3)(a) is not violative of Article 14.2. The effect of the inclusion of the Act in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution:The Act was included in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution with effect from 10th August 1975. The Court referred to the case of Jagannath v. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, which held that the inclusion of an Act in the 9th Schedule, read with Article 31B, cures any defects arising from the violation of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, with retrospective effect.The Court also considered the case of Waman Rao v. Union of India, which held that Acts included in the 9th Schedule before 24th April 1973 would receive full protection under Article 31B. For Acts included after this date, the protection would only apply if they do not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.Since the Court had already determined that Section 8(3)(a) does not violate Article 14, the inclusion of the Act in the 9th Schedule provides it with additional protection, making it immune from challenges based on fundamental rights.Separate Judgments:Civil Appeal Nos. 4688-94/89 & 2674-85/89:The Court dismissed these appeals, applying the principle laid down in Harbans Singh Shanni Devi v. Union of India, where solatium and interest were awarded due to the delay in appointing an Arbitrator.Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1992:The Court set aside the enhanced compensation, which was impermissible under the law.Civil Appeal No. 2073 of 1990:The Court upheld the original award but set aside the enhanced compensation, considering it illegal.Civil Appeal Nos. 1320-1322 of 1990:The Court dismissed these appeals, noting that the impugned judgment had become conclusive and could not be reopened.Civil Appeal No. 1742-56 of 1986:The Court dismissed these appeals, considering the long lapse of time since the award was made in 1961.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the award, and remitted the matter to the Arbitrator to determine the award in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court held that Section 8(3)(a) is not violative of Article 14 and that the inclusion of the Act in the 9th Schedule provides it with constitutional protection.