SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD Vs. V SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the two question of law that arise for consideration are common to all these writ appeals and writ petitions, the parties have invited us to hear and dispose them off together. In fact some of the counsel adopted the arguments addressed by the others in this regard.

(2.) Dealing with the case of compulsory acquisition of land under a notification dated Ath July, 1968, issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in which the award was made on 6th July, 1982 our learned brother P.A.Choudary struck down section 23(1) of the Act in so far as it directs the determination of the compensation on the basis of the market value of the land as on the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) holding it to be ultra vires of second proviso of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution of India. The two questions are: (1) Whether section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the Act, which directs the determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act offends the second proviso to Article of the Constitution and therefore void and Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution obliges the payments to calculate the market value prevailing on the date of payment of compensation? (2) Whether the inordinate delay in the completion of award proceedings after the publication of the Notification under section 4 (1) resulting in delayed payment of compensation vitiates the acquisition proceedings and are liable to be quashed?

(3.) Our learned brother, P.A.Choudary, J. disposing of W.P.No.6491/79 out of which W.A.Nos.393/82 and 1085/82 arise. held that section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as it directs the compensation to be determined as per the market value prevailing on the date of the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act to be void as being ultra vires the second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution and that in view of the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution, the compensation has to be calculated as per the market value prevailing on the date of payment of the compensation. In that view of the matter, he quashed the acquisition without going into the other questions arising in the writ petition.