SK ASLAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the referring claimant and it arises out of a reference under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) On May 13, 1944, C. S. Plot Nos. 801, 805, 994, 998 (p), 1025, 1026, 1029, 1030, 1083, 1148 and 1149 of mouja Digla in the district of 24-Parganas, were requisitioned under Rule 75A (1) of the Defence of India Rules. Thereafter on November 4, 1959, these plots measuring about 3.69 acres were acquired under Section 7 of the Act. On November 9, 1959, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-per bigha with respect to lands in the above C. S. Plot except plot No. 1149 which is a doba and the same was assessed at Rs. 500/- per bigha As no agreement was reached between the parties with regard to the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector, an Arbitrator was appointed by a notification dated 17th of May, 1960, and, a reference was made to him on 29-6-60. The claimant claimed Rs. 4,000/- per bigha as fair compensation for the lands and Rupees. 2,000/- per bigha for the 'doba'. The claimant contended before the Arbitrator that Clause (b) of Section 8 (3) of the Act was ultra vires and the Arbitrator should award compensation under Clause (a) of Section 8 (3) of the Act The learned Arbitrator rejected the claimant's contention and awarded compensation of the lands at Rs. 1400/- per bigha and the doba at Rs. 700/- per bigha, being double the rate that was prevalent at the time of requisition. The claimant, being aggrieved against the said award of the learned Arbitrator, preferred this appeal in this Court.

(3.) Mr. Sen the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, contended that after the Constitution (4th Amendment) Act, 1955, under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution inadequacy of compensation is not justiciable and when Parliament has expressly enacted that no law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided is not adequate, it was intended clearly to exclude from the jurisdiction of the court an enquiry as to whether the amount fixed or determined by the application of the principles stated in the statute is 'a just equivalent' of what the owner of the land is deprived of. In other words, the argument is, that neither the principles prescribing the 'just equivalent' nor the amount awarded as 'just equivalent' can be questioned by the Courts on the ground or inadequacy of compensation.