STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MANORANJAN ROUTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by the State of West Bengal arise from the judgment of the Calcutta High court in C. R. Nos. 2565/68 and 1/68 which had been transferred to the High court under Article 228 of the Constitution. The cases arose from proceedings initiated under the W. B. Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 ("the Act")

(2.) The relevant question which arose before the High court was whether the provisions of Ss. (2) of S. 8 of the Act relating to S. 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1984, has reduced and curtailed the quantum of compensation payable under the parent Act and is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and if so whether it is saved by Article 31 B of the Constitution and the Ninth Schedule thereto". The High court held, rightly in our view, that Ss. (2) of S. 8 was not specified in the Ninth Schedule and Article 31b had no application in so far as that Ss. was concerned. Ss. (2) was inserted in the Act by an amendment of the S. after the Act itself had been included in the Ninth Schedule. The subsequent amendment was, therefore, not saved by Article 31b.

(3.) Following the principles laid down by this court in P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector Madras andanr. (1965) 1 SCR 614 Balammal and Ors etc. v. State of Madras and Ors. etc. (1969) 1 SCR 90 and other cases, the High court held that Ss. (2) of S. 8 of the Act was invalid because it violated Article 14 of the Constitution and struck down the sub-section.