SINGARENI COLLERIES COMPANY LTD Vs. V SATYANSRAYANA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the two questions 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 (his regard.

(2.) Dealing with the case of compulsory acquisition of land under a notification dated 4-7-1968 issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in which the award was made on 6-7-1982 our learned brother P. A. Choudary, struck down Sec. 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 Sec. 4 (1) holding it to be ultra vires of second proviso of Art. 31- A (1) of the Constitution of India. The two questions are : (1) Whether Sec. 23 (1) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (hereinafter 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 S. 4(1) of the Act offends the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution and therefore void and Article 31A (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 Sec. 4 (1) resulting in delayed payment of compensation vitiates the acquisition proceedings and are liable to be queshed?

(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 Sec. 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 Sec. 4 (1) of the Act to be void as being ultra vires the second proviso to Article 31-A 0) 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 matters he quashed the acquisition without going into the otner questions arising in the writ petition.