1964 (3) TMI 134 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Invalidates Land Acquisition Act Provisions

State of Madras Versus D. Namasivaya Mudaliar and Ors.

State of Madras Versus D. Namasivaya Mudaliar and Ors. - 1965 AIR 190 (SC), [1964] 6 SCR 936 Issues Involved:1. Validity of Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras Lignite (Acquisition of Land) Act XI of 1953.2. Constitutionality of fixing compensation based on the market value as of April 28, 1947.3. Exclusion of non-agricultural improvements in compensation assessment.4. Validity of the power to take possession under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras Lignite (Acquisition of Land) Act XI of 1953:The primary issue addressed was whether Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras Lignite (Acquisition of Land) Act XI of 1953, which amend the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 for lignite-bearing lands, infringe the fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution. The court examined the provisions of the Madras Act, which froze the market value of the land at April 28, 1947, for compensation purposes, and excluded non-agricultural improvements made after that date. The court found that these provisions were inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of just compensation under Article 31(2) as it stood before the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955.2. Constitutionality of Fixing Compensation Based on Market Value as of April 28, 1947:The court held that fixing compensation based on the market value of the land as of April 28, 1947, was arbitrary and violated Article 31(2). It stated that there was no true relation between the acquisition of the lands and the fixation of compensation based on their value on that specific date. The court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee protects against expropriation without just indemnification, and any law authorizing acquisition must ensure a just monetary equivalent for the property taken.3. Exclusion of Non-Agricultural Improvements in Compensation Assessment:The court also found that the exclusion of non-agricultural improvements made after April 28, 1947, from the compensation assessment infringed Article 31(2). Under Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 'land' includes benefits arising out of the land and things attached to the earth. Therefore, the acquisition should cover the entirety of the owner's interest, including non-agricultural improvements. Denying compensation for such improvements was deemed a violation of the constitutional protection of property rights.4. Validity of the Power to Take Possession Under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act as Amended:The court did not address the validity of the power reserved under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Section 2 of the Madras Act XI of 1953, to take possession of lands under the emergency clause for working lignite mines. No arguments were advanced on this issue, and the High Court had not considered it.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision that the provisions of the Madras Act XI of 1953 were invalid. The court ruled that the Act's provisions for compensation based on the market value as of April 28, 1947, and the exclusion of non-agricultural improvements violated Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent in appeal No. 11 of 1963, and no order as to costs in other appeals.