BACHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1086, 1884, 1885 and 2395 of 1980, as common questions of law are involved therein.

(2.) The immovable properties belonging to the petitioners were requisitioned under Section 23 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) and subsequently, the Central Government decided to acquire the said immovable properties in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (2) to section 30 of the Act. Compensation for the acquisition of the said properties was determined as provided under Section 31 of the Act. Since there is no provision in the Act for the payment of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and the interest at the rate of six per cent, as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no amount was allowed to the petitioners on account of the said two counts. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that the provisions of section 31 of the Act, in so far as they deny the solatium and the interest on the amount of the compensation determined, are discriminatory and, therefore, violative of the petitioner fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, the main reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Kishan v. The Union of India, 1975 AIR(P&H) 74. In that case, the provisions of Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act of 1952) in so far as those provisions denied 15 per cent by way of solatium on the compensation awarded and also denied interest at the rate of 6 per cent while granting those benefits to the owners of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were held to be violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, and it was held therein that the owners of land acquitted under the Act of 1952 were entitled to claim and receive, from the Central Government, solatium at 15 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation allowed to them for their land and also interest at 6 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ratio of the above-said Full Bench decision is not applicable to the present cases in view of the specific provisions of the Act. He particularly referred to sections 23 and 37 of the Act, which read, -

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a great length, I am of the considered opinion that the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Krishan's case fully applicable to the facts of the present cases. In the above said Full Bench case, the learned counsel for the Union of India laid emphasis on their provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act of 1952 and argued that the power of acquiring property under the said Act having been directly confined within the limits laid down in section 7(3), the result would be that only such property could be acquired as has already been requisitioned by the Government under the said Act. On that basis, it was also argued that there was a reasonable classification between the owners of the properties requisitioned under the Act of 1952 on the one hand and the owners whose properties had not been requisitioned under that Act and, therefore, the impugned provisions of that Act did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. R.S. Narula C.J., speaking for the Court, repelled these contentions and observed -