9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Impact of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 on compensation and acquisition procedures. 3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution. 4. Retrospective validation of notifications and acquisitions. 5. Discrimination in the application of the Amendment Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings: The writ petitions challenged the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated by notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated November 13, 1959, and subsequent declarations under Section 6. The petitioners argued that once a declaration under Section 6 is made, the Section 4 notification is exhausted, and no further acquisitions can be made without a fresh Section 4 notification. This argument was based on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. V. P. Sharma ([1966] 3 S.C.R. 557), which held that Sections 4, 5-A, and 6 are integrally connected, and successive notifications under Section 6 based on a single Section 4 notification are invalid. 2. Impact of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967: The Amendment Act was promulgated to counter the Supreme Court's decision in V. P. Sharma's case. It allowed multiple reports under Section 5-A and multiple declarations under Section 6 for different parcels of land covered by the same Section 4 notification. Section 4 of the Amendment Act validated past acquisitions and actions, notwithstanding any court judgment to the contrary. The petitioners contended that this Act did not revive the exhausted Section 4 notifications and thus acquisitions based on such notifications were invalid. 3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that the Amendment Act violated Article 31(2) by allowing compensation based on outdated Section 4 notifications, depriving landowners of the appreciated value of their land. They also claimed that the Act violated Article 14 by creating discriminatory treatment between landowners affected by Section 4 notifications issued before and after January 20, 1967. The Amendment Act allowed declarations under Section 6 within two years for pre-1967 notifications and three years for post-1967 notifications, leading to unequal treatment in compensation. 4. Retrospective Validation of Notifications and Acquisitions: The Amendment Act's Section 4 sought to validate acquisitions and actions taken under exhausted Section 4 notifications. The petitioners argued that without a retrospective amendment of Section 4 or a provision deeming the notifications as made under the amended Act, such validation was ineffective. The Supreme Court examined whether the Amendment Act's validation provisions were sufficient to sustain acquisitions based on exhausted notifications. 5. Discrimination in the Application of the Amendment Act: In Writ Petition No. 85 of 1967, the petitioner claimed discrimination as his land was not denotified while other colonies in the same area were. The government had a policy to denotify land where both layout and service plans were approved before November 13, 1959. The petitioner's colony had only the layout plan approved, leading to differential treatment. The Supreme Court examined whether this policy and its application resulted in unconstitutional discrimination. Judgment Summary: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, and dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that the Amendment Act was within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate Articles 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution. The Act's provisions for multiple declarations under Section 6 and validation of past acquisitions were found to be valid. The Court rejected the argument that the Act required a retrospective amendment of Section 4, stating that the validation provisions were sufficient to sustain the acquisitions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination in the application of the Act. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
