Different compensation scheme for requisitioned property upheld; absence of solatium and interest did not violate equality guarantees.

Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 was upheld because acquisition of property already under requisition is materially different from direct land acquisition. The Court held that denial of solatium and interest does not create hostile discrimination where the owner has already received compensation for the requisition period and the statute requires just compensation within its own scheme. The Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule also attracted Article 31-B protection retrospectively, so any Part III-based challenge to the scheduled enactment failed. The constitutional challenge was therefore rejected, and the impugned provision stood validated.

---

---

Issues: (i) 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 by reason of not providing solatium and interest on compensation for acquired requisitioned property; (ii) Whether the inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule attracts the protection of Article 31-B of the Constitution of India and validates the impugned provision retrospectively.

Issue (i): 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 by reason of not providing solatium and interest on compensation for acquired requisitioned property.

Analysis: The Act deals with acquisition of property already under prior requisition, which is materially distinct from direct acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Under the Act, the owner has already been deprived of possession and enjoyment during the requisition period and receives compensation for that period under Section 8(2). The compensation for later acquisition is required to be determined as just compensation having regard to the circumstances of the case and the statutory limitations in Section 8. The Court held that the omission of solatium and interest in Section 8(3)(a) reflects legislative intent and does not amount to hostile discrimination, because the statutory scheme and the nature of the interest acquired are different from those under the Land Acquisition Act.

Conclusion: Section 8(3)(a) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether the inclusion of the Act in the Ninth Schedule attracts the protection of Article 31-B of the Constitution of India and validates the impugned provision retrospectively.

Analysis: The Court held that the Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule gives it the protection of Article 31-B with retrospective effect. Since the impugned provision was found not to offend Article 14, the challenge based on the basic structure doctrine did not survive. The retrospective protective effect of Article 31-B cures any alleged invalidity arising from Part III inconsistency in relation to the scheduled enactment.

Conclusion: The Act is protected by Article 31-B and the challenge on that ground fails.

Final Conclusion: The principal appeals succeeded on the constitutional challenge, resulting in the setting aside of the High Court judgments and remand to the Arbitrator, while some connected appeals were allowed only to the extent of deleting impermissible additions or were dismissed depending on their facts.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory scheme for acquisition of property already under requisition may validly prescribe a different compensation basis from direct land acquisition, and the absence of solatium or interest does not by itself offend Article 14 where the scheme provides just compensation within a distinct legal context.

---