1984 (8) TMI 352 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of the entire land acquisition notification.
3. Delay in taking possession and its impact on compensation.

Summary:

1. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court found that the Government of Bihar's action of releasing a portion of land (4.03 acres) belonging to influential persons (Pandey families) from the acquisition process was a clear act of favoritism. This release was done without any reasonable classification or nexus to the object of the notification, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Government's justification for the release, citing the existence of large buildings on the land, was a false pretext. Photographic evidence showed only small hutments on the land, and the Pandey families did not dispute this. Consequently, the release of land was declared non est (null and void) as it was violative of Article 14.

2. Validity of the Entire Land Acquisition Notification:
The appellants argued that the entire acquisition should be declared unconstitutional due to the partial violation of Article 14. However, the Court held that the release of the land was a separate and subsequent act and did not invalidate the entire notification issued u/s 4 on 19.8.74. The original notification remained valid, and the land released to the Pandey families would form part of the acquisition as it did on 19.8.74. The Court distinguished this case from Lila Ram v. Union of India, where the argument was based on the lack of public purpose in acquiring the land.

3. Delay in Taking Possession and Its Impact on Compensation:
The appellants contended that the delay between the date of the section 4 notification and the actual taking over of possession should result in compensation being paid according to the land's value at the time of possession. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the delay was not the Collector's fault but due to stays by the Government and courts. However, recognizing the equity of the situation, the Court awarded additional compensation in the form of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for two years on the value of the land owned by each landowner. This equitable compensation was awarded in the special facts of the case and would not be subject to appeal under the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeals, special leave, and writ petitions were disposed of with the release of land to the Pandey families being declared non est, and the original notification u/s 4 being upheld. The appellants were awarded additional equitable compensation, but no order as to costs was made. Appeals and petitions were partly allowed.