Constitutional invalidity of property-restoration law under Article 31(2): unguided discretion and no definite compensation principles.

Section 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was examined for constitutional validity under Article 31(2). The provision was found to give the Central Government unguided discretion by using the broad standard of what was "not expedient or practicable," permitting deprivation of restoration without a true public-purpose limitation. It was also defective because it failed to fix compensation or state definite principles for valuation, including the relevant date for assessment. The saving argument under Article 31(2A) was rejected, as the section was not severable in operation and, for property still in the compensation pool, it effected vesting in the Central Government. Section 20B was therefore unconstitutional and void.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was constitutionally valid, particularly in relation to Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India and the claim that Article 31(2A) saved it.

Analysis: Section 20B enabled the Central Government, where restoration of property was considered not expedient or practicable, to substitute other immovable property from the compensation pool or pay cash, and on such grant or payment the rightful owner's title stood extinguished. The provision was held to confer an unguided discretion: the phrase "not expedient or practicable" was treated as too wide, and the section allowed deprivation of restoration for reasons not confined to any true public purpose. It was further found defective on compensation, because it did not fix the amount of compensation or lay down definite principles for determining it, including the relevant point of time for valuation. The argument that Article 31(2A) could save the provision was rejected because the section was not severable in its operation and, insofar as it dealt with property still in the compensation pool, it effected vesting in the Central Government.

Conclusion: Section 20B was unconstitutional and void for violating Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India, and Article 31(2A) did not validate it.

---