{"id":251307,"date":"1967-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967"},"modified":"2019-01-19T22:11:57","modified_gmt":"2019-01-19T16:41:57","slug":"deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967","title":{"rendered":"Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 394, 1968 SCR (1) 561<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR, KAMRUP& ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDURGA NATH SARMA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/09\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nWANCHOO, K.N. (CJ)\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nMITTER, G.K.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  394\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 561\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1969 SC 634\t (23)\n RF\t    1970 SC1157\t (19)\n RF\t    1972 SC2205\t (17,18,26)\n RF\t    1972 SC2301\t (61)\n RF\t    1975 SC1389\t (21,23)\n RF\t    1980 SC1789\t (36)\n\n\nACT:\nThe Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and  Preven-\ntion of Erosion Act (6 of 1955) and the Assam Acquisition of\nLand for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion  (Validity)\nAct  (21 of 1960)-If violative of Arts. 14 and 31(2) of\t the\nConstitution.\nConstitution of India, 1950, Art. 31(5)(b)(ii)-<\/a>Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Assam  Acquisition\t of  Land  for\tFlood  Control\t and\nPrevention  of\tErosion\t Act, 1955, was\t passed\t before\t the\nConstitution   was  amended  by\t the  Constitution   (Fourth\nAmendment) Act.\t As the Act did not apply to the lands which\nwere  taken  possession of before it came  into\t force,\t the\nAssam  Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and  Prevention\nof Erosion (Validation) Act, 1959, Act XXI of 1960 was pass-\ned,  validating\t the  acquisition of  lands  of\t which\tsuch\npossession  had been taken.  Under s. 2 of the 1960 Act\t any\nland  taken over for the construction of embankments  before\nthe  1955  Act came into force unless  the  acquisition\t was\nvalidly made under any other law for the time being in force\nshall  be  deemed to have been validity acquired  under\t the\n1955  Act  and\tis  deemed  to\thave  vested  in  the  State\nGovernment  from  the  date  the  land\twas  actually  taken\npossession  of; and compensation was payable  in  accordance\nwith the principles in s. 6 of the 1955 Act.  Under s.\t6(1)\nof the 1955 Act the owner of the land shall get compensation\nfor  land  including standing crops and trees, if  any,\t but\nexcluding  buildings or structures, a sum not. exceeding  40\ntimes the annual land revenue in case of periodic patta land\nand 15 times the annual land revenue in case of annual patta\nland.\tUnder s. 6(2) the owner shall get  compensation\t for\nthe  building or structure, if any, a sum equivalent to\t the\nsale  proceeds\tof  the\t materials  plus  fifteen  per\tcent\nthereof.\nIn  1954. the Assam Government took possession of the  lands\nof the respondent for the construction of an embankment\t and\nthe   respondent   was\tasked  to  submit  his\t claim\t for\ncompensation under the 1955 and 1960 Acts after the 1960 Act\nwas  passed.  He then filed a writ petition challenging\t the\nvalidity  of  both  the\t Acts and  prayed  for\ta  direction\nprohibiting  the State Government from taking  action  under\nthose Acts as the compensation payable was illusory and\t in-\nadequate.   The\t High  Court  held that\t the  1955  Act\t was\nviolative  of  Art.  31(2<\/a>), as it stood\t before\t the  Fourth\nAmendment  Act, that it was not protected by Art.  31A<\/a>,\t and\nthat,  the 1960 Act was not independent of the 1955 Act\t and\nfell with it.\nIn  appeal  by\tthe  State  Government\tto  this  Court\t the\nappellant submitted that the two Acts were not violative  of\nArts. 14 and 31(2) and were in any event protected by  Arts.\n31A and 31 (5) (b) (ii).\nHELD:  (1) The constitutional validity of the 1955 Act\tmust\nbe judged by   Art.  31(2)<\/a>  as it stood\t before\t the  Fourth\nAmendment Act.Since the\t assessment  of\t land.\trevenue\t  in\nAssam  many  years ago. the market value of  the  lands\t has\nincreased  by leaps and bounds.\t Under s, 6(1) of  the\tAct,\nthe Collector, in determining the compensation,\nL\/J(N)6SCI-10\n562\nshould\ttake  into account the value of the land as  at\t the\ndate  of  the  acquisition and other factors,  but  this  is\nmeaningless  because  under the first part of  s.  6(1)\t the\ncompensation  cannot exceed a fixed multiple of\t the  annual\nland  revenue.\t The State made no attempt to  show  that  a\nmultiple  of  land revenue payable for the land -is  a\tjust\nequivalent of or has any relation to the market value of the\nland  ,on  the date of the acquisition.\t The  sale  proceeds\nunder  s. 6(2) can not be regarded as a just  equivalent  of\nthe  value of the building and it stood at the time  of\t the\nacquisition.  The Act, therefore, does not ensure payment of\njust equivalent of the land appropriated and is violative of\nArt.  31(2)<\/a> as it stood before the Fourth Amendment.  [576H;\n577F-H-, 578A-C]\nState of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee<\/a>, [1954] S.C.R. 558 and\nState  of Madras v. D. Namasivaya Mudaliar<\/a>, [1964] 6  S.C.R.\n936, followed.\n(2) The Act is a purely expropriatory measure.\tIt  provides\nfor  acquisition  of lands both urban and  agricultural\t for\nexecuting   works  in  connection  with\t flood\tcontrol\t  or\nprevention  of erosion.\t A piece of land acquired under\t the\nAct  need not be an estate or - part of an estate.  The\t Act\nis  not\t a law concerning agrarian reform and hence  is\t not\nprotected by Art. 31A<\/a> of the Constitution. [568G-H]\nKochuni\t v.  State of Madras<\/a>, [1960] 3\tS.C.R.\t887;  Ranjit\nSingh  v.  State  of Punjab<\/a>, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 82\t and  P.  V.\nMudaliar  v.  Special  Deputy Collector,  Madras<\/a>,  [1965]  1\nS.C.R. 641 followed.\n(3) The Act is a law for the acquisition of property and not\na law for preventing danger to life or property, and so,  it\nis  not protected by Art. 31 (5) (b) (ii).<\/a>  Article  31\t (5)\n(b)  (ii);<\/a> provides that nothing in Art. 31(2)<\/a> would  affect\nthe  provisions of any law which the State might make  after\nthe  commencement of the Constitution for the  promotion  of\npublic\thealth or the prevention of danger to life  or\tpro-\nperty.\t A  law\t for  promotion\t of  public  health  or\t for\nprevention  of danger to life or property sometimes  has  to\nprovide\t for  destruction  and impairment of  the  value  of\nprivate\t property and the taking of temporary possession  of\nthe  property by the State.  Any substantial  abridgment  of\nthe right of ownership of property including its destruction\nor  injuriously affecting it or taking away  its  possession\nand  enjoyment\tfrom  the owner, amounted  to  a  taking  of\nproperty  within  the purview of Art. 31(2<\/a>), before  it\t was\namended\t  by  the  Fourth  Amendment  Act.   But  for\tArt.\n31(5)(b)(ii)<\/a>  a\t law authorising such a taking\tof  property\nwould have been invalid unless it provided for compensation.\nThe clause saved such laws from the operation of cl. (2) and\nthese  laws were not invalid because they authorised such  a\ntaking\twithout payment of compensation.  A law\t authorising\nthe  abatement\tof a public menace by destroying  or  taking\ntemporary  possession  of private properties, if  the  peril\ncannot be abated in some other way, can be regarded as a law\nfor  promotion of public health or prevention of  danger  to\nlife or property within the purview of cl. 5(b)(ii).  But it\nis not possible to say that a law for permanent\t acquisition\nof  property is such a law.  The object of  the\t acquisition\nmay  be the opening of a public park for the improvement  of\npublic\thealth or the erection of an embankment\t to  prevent\ndanger\tto  life or property from flood.   As  the  acquired\nproperty  belongs  to the State, the State is free  to\tdeal\nwith  it as it chooses after the acquisition.  It may  close\nthe public park and use the property for other purposes,  or\nthe river may recede or change its course so that it may  no\nlonger\tbe necessary to keep the embankment.  The State\t may\nthen sell the property and appropriate the sale proceeds  to\nits  own use.  Acquistions of property for the opening of  a\npublic park or for the erection of dams and embankments were\nalways made under the\n563\nLand  Acquisition  Act<\/a> and it could not have  been  intended\nthat such acquisition could be made under laws coming within\nthe   Purview\tof  el.\t (5)(b)(ii)   without\tpayment\t  of\ncompensation.\tCl.  5(b)(11)  did  not\t protect  laws\t for\nacquisition of property from the operation of Art. 31(2)<\/a>  as\nit  stood  before the Constitution (Fourth  Amendment)\tAct.\n[574C-H; 575A-D]\nState  of  West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose<\/a>,  [1954]  S.C.R.\n587, and Dwarkadas Shriniwas of Bombay v. Sholapur  Spinning\nand Weaving Co. Ltd<\/a>. [1954] S.C.R. 674, referred to.\n(4) The effect of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act is\nthat a deprivation of property, short of the transfer of the\nownership or the right to possession of any property to\t the\nState, is not within the purview of Art. 31(2).<\/a>\t A law, made\nafter the Fourth Amendment Act providing for destruction  of\nproperty  or impairment of its value, is not invalid on\t the\nground that it does not provide for payment of compensation,\nbecause,  it is no longer within the purview of Art.  31(2<\/a>),\nand, it is not necessary to invoke cl. (5) (b) (ii) to\tsave\nit.   It  cannot  therefore  be\t contended  that  laws\t for\npermanent  acquisition\tof  property for  the  promotion  of\npublic\thealth or prevention of danger to life or  property,\nshould be held to be saved by Art. 31 (5) (b) (ii)<\/a> and\tthat\notherwise  the clause would be otiose.\tEven now the  clause\nwill protect laws providing for requisitioning or  temporary\noccupation  of property strictly necessary for promotion  of\npublic\thealth or prevention of danger to life or  property.\nBut as the Fourth Amendment did not amend cl. (5)(b)(ii) and\ndid  not  change its original meaning, the clause  will\t not\nsave  laws for the Permanent acquisition of  property,\tfrom\nthe operation of Art. 31(2).<\/a> [575G-H; 576A-C]\n(5)  There is unjust discrimination between owners  of\tland\nsimilarly  situated by the mere accident of some land  being\nrequired  the  purposes mentioned in the 1955 Act  and\tsome\nland  being required or other purposes, and  therefore,\t the\nAct  is violative of Art. 14.<\/a>  In the State of\tAssam,\tsome\nland  may  be taken under the 1955 Act for  the\t purpose  of\nworks and other measure in connection with flood control and\nprevention  of\terosion on payment of  nominal\tcompensation\nwhile,\tan  adjoining  land may be taken  for  other  public\npurposes  under\t the  Land Acquisition\tAct<\/a>  on\t payment  of\nadequate   compensation.   Article  14<\/a>\tpermits\t  reasonable\nclassification\t and   differential   treatment\t  based\t  on\nsubstantial  differences having reasonable relation  to\t the\nobject\tsought to be achieved.\tIt is not possible  to\thold\nthat  the differential treatment of the land acquired  under\nthe Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894, and those acquired under the\nAssam Act<\/a> of 1955 has any reasonable relation to the  object\nof the acquisition by the State. [578E-G; 579C-E]\nP.  Vajravelu  Mudaliar v. Dy.\tCollector<\/a>, [1965]  1  S.C.R.\n614, followed.\n[Whether the Act is ultra vires on the ground that the State\nmay acquire lands at its option either under the 1955 Act or\nunder the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, left open.] [579H]\n(6) The core of the 1960 Act is the deeming provision of  s,\n2,  under  which, certain lands are deemed  to\tbe  acquired\nunder  the earlier Act.\t The 1960 Act is entirely  dependent\nupon  the continuing existence and validity of\tthe  earlier\nAct of 1955.  As the earlier Act is unconstitutional and has\nno  legal existence the deemed acquisition tinder  the\t1960\nAct  is\t equally  invalid.  As\tthis  deeming  provision  is\ninvalid\t all  the ancillary provisions fall  to\t the  ground\nalong  with  it\t and  the provisions of\t the  1960  Act\t are\nincapable  of  enforcement  and\t are  invalid.\t The   State\nLegislature  has no power to enact that an acquisition\tmade\nunder a constitutionally invalid Act is valid. [580D F-H]\n564\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1100 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated November 26,\t1962
\nof the Assam High Court in Civil Rule No. 489 of 1961.
\nS.  V.\tGupte,\tSolicitor-General and Naunit  Lal,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
B. R. L. Iyengar, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J. In 1954, the Assam Government took  possession
\nof  the\t lands of the respondent and several  other  persons
\nsituated  in the District of Kamrup for the construction  of
\nthe Pagdalia embankment.  In 1.955, the Assam Acquisition of
\nLand for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion  Ordinance.
\n1955 (Assam Ordinance No. 2 of 1955) was passed enabling the
\nState  Government  to  acquire\tlands  for  works  or  other
\ndevelopment  measures  in connection with flood\t control  or
\nprevention  of erosion.\t The Ordinance was replaced  by\t the
\nAssam  Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and  Prevention
\nof  Erosion  Act, 1955 (Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955)  which\t was
\npassed\ton April 11, 1955 with the assent of the  President.
\nIn  April  1956,  the State Government passed  an  order  in
\nwriting\t acquiring  the\t lands taken over in  1954  for\t the
\nconstruction  of  the  Pagdalia embankment  under  s.  3<\/a>  of
\nOrdinance No. 2 of 1955.  It seems that the reference to the
\nOrdinance  was a mistake and the acquisition was made  under
\nAct  No. 6 of 1955.  On April 26, 1956, the  respondent\t was
\nserved\twith  the notice of the acquisition.   By  an  order
\ndated  September 10, 1959, the Deputy  Commissioner,  Kamrup
\nacting\ton behalf of the State Government quashed the  Order
\ndated  April  19, 1956 and directed that  fresh\t acquisition
\nproceedings under- the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894 should  be
\nstarted.  Pursuant to this order, some of the lands required
\nfor  the  Pagdalia embankment were acquired under  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act<\/a> on payment of full compensation.   A  draft
\nnotification  for the acquisition of the respondent’s  lands
\nunder the Land Acquisition Act<\/a> was sent by the Collector  of
\nKamrup\tto  the\t Assam Government  for\tapproval,  but\tthis
\nproposal was eventually dropped.  On May 27, 1960. the Assam
\nAcquisition  of\t Land for Flood Control\t and  Prevention  of
\nErosion\t (Validation) Act, 1959 (Assam Act<\/a> No. 21  of  1960)
\nwas  passed with the assent of the President.\tIn  November
\n1960.\tthe  State  Government\tpassed\tan  order  for\t the
\nacquisition  of\t the respondent’s lands under s.  3<\/a>  of\t the
\nAssam  Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and  Prevention
\nof  Erosion Act.  It was common case before the\t High  Court
\nthat  this acquisition was made under s. 3<\/a> of Act No. 21  of
\n1960.  On November 6, 1960, the Collector of Kamrup served a
\nnotice upon the respondent informing him of the\t acquisition
\norder and asking him to submit his` claim for  compensation.
\nOn September 30, 1961, the respondent
\n565<\/span>
\nfiled a writ petition in the Assam High Court asking for  an
\norder declaring Act No. 6 of 1955 and Act No. 21 of 1960  to
\nbe  invalid  and directing the State Government\t to  forbear
\nfrom  giving effect to the notices issued  thereunder.\t The
\nHigh  Court  allowed  the  petition and\t issued\t a  writ  of
\nmandamus.directing  the State Government not to give  effect
\nto the notices issued under Act No. 21 of 1960.\t The present
\nappeal\thas  been filed under a certificate granted  by\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
It is convenient at this stage to refer to the provisions of
\nthe impugned Acts.  The preamble to Act No. 6 of 1955  shows
\nthat  it  was  passed  to  make\t provision  for\t the  speedy
\nacquisition   of   lands  necessary  for  works\t  or   other
\ndevelopment measures  connection with flood or prevention of
\nerosion.   Section 3<\/a> gives power to the State Government  to
\nacquire land for those purposes by an order in writing.\t  It
\nis in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  Power to acquire land-If, in the  opinion
\n\t      of the, State Government or such officer as is
\n\t      empowered\t  in  this  behalf  by\t the   State
\n\t      Government  it  is necessary or  expedient  to
\n\t      acquire  speedily any land for works or  other
\n\t      development  measures in connection with\tflood
\n\t      control or prevention of erosion, the    State
\n\t      Government  or such officer, may by, an  order
\n\t      in writing, acquire any land stating the\tarea
\n\t      and boundaries of the land.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 4<\/a> provides for the service and publication  of\t the
\norder  of  acquisition.’  Under s. 5<\/a>,  on  such\t service  or
\npublication  the land vests in the State Government and\t may
\nbe  taken  possession of by the Collector.   Section  46<\/a>  as
\namended\t  by  Act  No.\t17  of\t1959  which   provides\t for
\ncompensation is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “6.  Compensation-The owner of the land  which
\n\t      has  vested  in the Government  under  section
\n\t      5(1)<\/a>  shall get compensation at the  following
\n\t      rates,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   for\t land including standing  crops\t and
\n\t      trees,   if  any\tbut  excluding,building\t  or
\n\t      structure, a sum not exceeding forty times the
\n\t      annual land revenue in case of Periodic  Patta
\n\t      Land and fifteen times the annual land revenue
\n\t      in case of Annual Patta land:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that in case of revenue free land and
\n\t      land  paying revenue at concessional rate\t the
\n\t      compensation will be assessed on the basis  of
\n\t      the revenue of similar revenue paying land  of
\n\t      the neighbourhood.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  determining this sum, the Collector  shall
\n\t      take the following into consideration:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   The value of the land, as at the date of
\n\t      acquisition,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)  the, adverse effect on the value  of\t the
\n\t      land  due to. possible floods, on the land  or
\n\t      danger of erosion of such land,,
\n566<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c) The benefit the owner is likely to  derive
\n\t      in respect ,of his other lands in the area due
\n\t      to the control measures,,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   The\t damage\t sustained  by\tthe   person
\n\t      interested  by  reason of the  taking  of\t any
\n\t      standing\tcrops or trees which may be  on\t the
\n\t      land  at\tthe  time of  the  Collector  taking
\n\t      possession thereof
\n\t      (2)  For building or structure, if any, a\t sum
\n\t      equivalent   to  the  sale  proceeds  of\t the
\n\t      materials\t of  the  same\tplus  15  per\tcent
\n\t      thereof:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that if in lieu of this\tcompensation
\n\t      the  owner chooses to take away the  materials
\n\t      the Collector shall allow him to do so  within
\n\t      such time as specified by him and the cost  of
\n\t      the shifting of the buildings or structures as
\n\t\t\t    the\t case  may be, as may be  approved
\n  by  the
\n\t      Collector\t in the manner prescribed  shall  be
\n\t      borne  by the Government, which cost  however,
\n\t      shall  not exceed 20 per cent of the value  of
\n\t      the buildings or structures as the case may be
\n\t      as determined by the Collector.”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 7<\/a>  provides for payment  of  interim  compensation.
\nUnder  s. 8<\/a>, the Collector is required to make an  award  of
\nthe   compensation   allowable\t for  the   land   and\t its
\napportionment  among  the persons interested  in  the  land.
\nUnder  s. 9<\/a>, on the application of any person  aggrieved  by
\nthe award, the Collector is required to refer the matter  to
\nthe  decision  of  an  arbitrator  appointed  by  the  State
\nGovernment.   Section 10<\/a> empowers the Collector to use\tsuch
\nforce as may be necessary to evict any person from the land.
\nSection\t II  imposes. penalties on persons  obstructing\t the
\ntaking of possession of the land by the Collector.   Section
\n12<\/a> gives protection for action taken in good faith under the
\nAct.   Section\t13<\/a> bars the jurisdiction of  the  Courts  to
\nquestion the legality of actions taken or orders made  under
\nthe Act.  Section 14<\/a> empowers, the State Government to\tmake
\nrules.\t Section  16<\/a>  repeals  Ordinance  No.  2  of   1955.
\nOrdinance No. 2 of 1955 contained similar provisions, and it
\nis not necessary to repeat them.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The preamble to Act No. 21 of 1960 shows\tthat
\n\t      its  object is to validate the acquisition  of
\n\t      lands  taken  over  for  flood,  control\t and
\n\t      prevention of erosion.  Section 2<\/a> is in  these
\n\t      terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained  in
\n\t      the  Assam  Acquisition  of  Land\t for   Flood
\n\t      Control  and Prevention of Erosion  Act,\t1955
\n\t      (hereinafter  referred to as the ‘said  Act’),
\n\t      any  land\t taken\tover  for  the\tpurposes  of
\n\t      construction  of embankments or  carrying\t out
\n\t      works   or  other\t development   measures\t  in
\n\t      connection with flood control or prevention of
\n\t      erosion  before  this  Act  came\tinto  force,
\n\t      except  where  acquisition  was  made  validly
\n\t      under  any  other law for the  time  being  in
\n\t      force, shall be deemed
\n567<\/span>
\n\t      to  have\tbeen  validly  acquired\t under\t the
\n\t      provisions  of  the ‘said Act’  and  the\tland
\n\t      shall  absolutely\t vest and  shall  always  be
\n\t      deemed  to have been vested in the State\tGov-
\n\t      ernment  from the date the land  was  actually
\n\t      taken possession of.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)  The Collector shall, as soon as  may\t be,
\n\t      after  the commencement of this Act,  publish,
\n\t      by  notification in the official Gazette,\t the
\n\t      description  of  land  deemed  to\t have\tbeen
\n\t      acquired under sub-section (1).”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 3<\/a> provides for payment of compensation.  It  is  in
\nthese terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  The Collector shall, within a  period  of
\n\t      six  months from the date of  commencement  of
\n\t      this  Act, assess the value of land deemed  to
\n\t      have   been  acquired  under  section   2<\/a>\t  in
\n\t      accordance  with the principles  contained  in
\n\t      section 6<\/a> and make an award under Section 8<\/a> of
\n\t      the  said Act respectively.  The owner of\t the
\n\t      land shall further be entitled to an  interest
\n\t      at  the  rate of 6 per cent per annum  on\t the
\n\t      value  of the award, for the period  from\t the
\n\t      date the land was actually taken possession of
\n\t      to the date of the award.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 4<\/a> gives protection for action taken in good faith in
\nconnection with the land deemed to have been acquired  under
\nsection 2<\/a>.Section 5<\/a> provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the
\n\t      provisions  of   the  said  Act  shall  apply,
\n\t      mutatis mutandis in respect of the acquisition
\n\t      of the land deemed to have been acquired under
\n\t      Section 2<\/a> of this Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 6<\/a>  provides that if any question arises as  to\t the
\ninterpretation\t of  the  provisions  of  the  Act  or\t the
\napplicability  of  any of its provisions in respect  of\t any
\nland  the matter shall be referred to the Governor of  Assam
\nwhose decision shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent challenged the validity of Act No. 6 of\t1955
\nand  Act No’ 21 of 1960 on the ground that they\t contravened
\nArts. 14 and 31(2) of the Constitution.\t The High Court held
\nthat  (1) Act No. 6 of 1955 was violative of Art.  31(2)<\/a>  of
\nthe Constitution as it stood before the Constitution (Fourth
\nAmendment) Act and was not protected by Art. 31A<\/a> and (2)<\/a>  s.
\n3<\/a>  of Act No. 21 of 1960 declaring that certain lands  would
\nbe  deemed to be validly acquired under the earlier Act\t was
\nnot a law providing for acquisition of land independently of
\nthe  earlier  Act and as the earlier Act  was  invalid,\t the
\nlater Act fell with it.\t The High Court did not express\t any
\nopinion\t on  the  question  whether  the  two  Acts  were  I
\nviolative of Art. 14.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
568<\/span><\/p>\n
Before us, counsel ‘forthe  appellants submitted that  the
\ntwo Acts were not violative of\t   Arts.  14 and  31(2)\t and
\nwere,\tin,   any   event,  protected’\t by   Arts,31A\t and
\n31(5)(b)(ii). The respondent was not represented by counsel,
\nbut ‘we have had the advantage of the argument of Mr. lengar
\nwho assisted as amicus curiae’.\n<\/p>\n
The  validity of both the Acts is in issue in  this  appeal.
\nOn  the\t question of the validity of Act No. 6 of  1955\t the
\nfollowing  points  arise  for  decision:  (1)  is  the\t Act
\nprotected   by\tArt.  31A;(2)<\/a>  is  it  protected   by\tArt.
\n31(5)(b)(ii);  (3)<\/a> does it infringe Art. 31(2); (4)<\/a>   is  it
\nviolative  of Art. 14?<\/a>\tWith regard to the validity, of\t Act
\nNo. 21 of 1960, the following points arise for decision: (1)
\nis it a law providing for acquisition of lands independently
\nof Act No. 6 of 1955, and if not, is it valid? (2) If it  is
\nan independent piece of legislation, (a) is it protected  by
\nArt. 31A; (b)<\/a> is it protected by Art. 31(5)(b)(ii); (c)<\/a> does
\nit contravene Art. 31(2).<\/a> and (d)is it violative of Art. 14?<\/a>
\nCounsel for the appellants submitted that Act No. 6 of 1955
\nis  a  law providing for the acquisition of estates  and  is
\nprotected  by Art. 31A(1)(a).<\/a>  We are unable to accept\tthis
\ncontention.   It  is now well settled  that  Art.  31A(1)(a)<\/a>
\nenvisages   only  laws\tconcerning  agrarian   reform.\t  In
\nKochuni’s  case(1),  the Court by a majority  decision\theld
\nthat  the  Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of  Doubts)\tAct,
\n1955 which deprived a sthanee of his properties and  vested-
\nthem in\t the  tarwad contravened Art. 19(1)(f)<\/a> and  was\t not
\nprotected by   Art.  31A<\/a>  and that Art. 31A<\/a> saved  laws\t for
\nagrarian reform only\t and  did  not enable the  State  to
\ndivest a proprietor of his estate  and\tvest it\t in  another
\nwithout reference to any agrarian reform.    In Ranjit Singh
\nv.  State of Punjab<\/a>(2), the Court held that the East  Punjab
\nHoldings  (Consolidation  and Prevention  of  Fragmentation)
\nAct, 1948 as amended by Act No. 27 of 1960 was protected  by
\nArt.  31A<\/a>, as the general scheme of the Act  was  definitely
\nagrarian reform and under its provisions something ancillary
\nthereto\t in  the interests of rural economy had\t to  be\t un-
\ndertaken  to  give  full effect to the reforms.\t  In  P.  V.
\nMudaliar  v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras<\/a>(3), the  Court
\nheld that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act,\t1961
\nproviding  for the acquisition of lands for  housing  scheme
\nwas not a law with reference: to any agrarian reform and was
\nnot protected by Art. 31A.<\/a>  In the light of these decisions,
\nwe must bold that Act No. 6 of 1955 is not a law  concerning
\nagrarian reform and -is not protected by Art. 31A.<\/a>  The\t Act<\/a>
\nis   a\tpurely\texpropriatory  measure.\t  It  provides\t for
\nacquisition  of\t lands\tboth  urban  and  agricultural\t for
\nexecuting  works  in  connection  with\tflood  control.\t  or
\nprevention  of erosion- A piece of. land acquired under\t the
\nAct  need not be an estate or part of an estate.  It has  no
\nrelation to agrarian reform, land tenures or the elimination
\nof intermediaries.  We may
\n(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887, 897-905.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 82.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 614.\n<\/p>\n
569<\/span><\/p>\n
add  that there is nothing’ on’, the record to,’  show\tthat
\nthe respondent’s lands are estates or parts of estates.
\nCounsel\t for the, appellants next submitted that nothing  in
\nArt. 31(2)<\/a> can affect Act No, 6; of 1955 as it is a law for,
\nthe  prevention\t of danger to life or  property\t within\t the
\npurview\t of Art. 31(5) (b)(ii)<\/a> This, contention is  somewhat
\nnovel, and requires close examination.\n<\/p>\n
Our  attention has been drawn to certain opinions  expressed
\nin our earlier decisions that Art. 31(2)<\/a> occupies, the field
\nof  eminent domain and Art. 31(5)(b)(ii)<\/a> contains  a  saving
\nclause\twith regard to the police powers of the State.\t The
\nconcepts  of eminent domain and police powers  are  borrowed
\nfrom: American law.  The constitutional guarantee of the due
\nprocess\t clause, in the United States Constitution  requires
\nthat  no  private  property shall be taken  for\t public\t use
\nwithout\t just compensation.  In the exercise of\t its  police
\npower,\tthe  State may pass regulations designed  to  ensure
\npublic\thealth, public morals, public safety as also  public
\nconvenience or general prosperity, see Chicago, Burlington &
\nQuincy\t Railway   Company  v.\tPeople\tof  the\t  State\t  of
\nIllinois(1).  In the exercise of its eminent  domain  power,
\nthe  State  may\t take any property from the  owner  and\t may
\nappropriate  it for public purposes The police\tand  eminent
\ndomain\tpowers\tare essentially\t distinct.Under\t the  police
\npower many restrictions may be imposed and   the    property
\nmay  even  be destroyed without\t compensation  being  given,
\nwhereas under the power of eminent domain, the property\t may
\nbe  appropriated  to public use on payment  of\tcompensation
\nonly.  The distinction between the two powers is brought out
\nclearly in the following passage in American  Jurisprudence,
\n2nd End, Vol. 16, Art. 301<\/a>,. p. 592:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The state, under the police power, cannot  in
\n\t      any  manner  actually  take  and\t appropriate
\n\t      property for public use without  compensation,
\n\t      for   such   action  is\trepugnant   to\t the
\n\t      constitutional  guaranty\tthat  where  private
\n\t      property\tis appropriated for public use,\t the
\n\t      owner  shall receive reasonable  compensation.
\n\t      Thus,  there is a vital difference,  which  is
\n\t      recognised by the authorities, between an\t act
\n\t      passed with exclusive reference to the  police
\n\t      power  of\t the state, without any\t purpose  to
\n\t      take and apply property to public uses, and an
\n\t      act which not only declares the existence of a
\n\t      nuisance\t created   by\tthe   condition\t  of
\n\t      particular  property, but in addition, and  as
\n\t      the  best\t means of accomplishing the  end  in
\n\t      view,  authorizes\t the  same  property  to  be
\n\t      appropriated by the public.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In Sweet   v.Rechel(2) the validity of\tan Act to enable the
\nCity of Boston to abate a nuisance existing therein and\t for
\nthe preservation    of\tthe  public health in  the  City  by
\nimproving the drainage of
\n(1) 200 U.S. 561 :50 L.Ed. 596, 609.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 159 U.S. 380:40 L.Ed. 188.\n<\/p>\n
570<\/span><\/p>\n
the  territory\twas  sustained on the ground  that  the\t Act
\nprovided  for  payment\tof  just  compensation.\t  The  Court
\npointed out that private property the condition of which was
\nsuch  as to endanger the public health could not be  legally
\ntaken  by  the Commonwealth and appropriated to\t public\t use
\nwithout\t reasonable compensation to the owner.\tIn  Delaware
\nL. & W. R. Co. v. Morristown(1) an Ordinance establishing  a
\npublic\thack  stand on private property without\t payment  of
\ncompensation  was  struck down on the ground  that  assuming
\nthat the creation of the public hack stand would be a proper
\nexercise of the police power it did not follow that the\t due
\nprocess clause would not safeguard to the owner just compen-
\nsation\tfor  the use of the property.  In United  States  v.
\nCaltex (Philippines)(2), the Court held that no compensation
\nwas payable by the United States for the destruction by\t its
\nretreating  army of private property to prevent its  falling
\ninto   enemy   hands.\tBut  the   Court   recognised\tthat
\ncompensation would be payable for the army’s  requisitioning
\nof private property for its subsequent use.  The Court\tsaid
\nthat in times of imminent peril-such as when fire threatened
\na  whole  community-the\t sovereign  could,  with   immunity,
\ndestroy the property of a few that the property of many\t and
\nthe lives of many more could be saved.\tIndeed, it would  be
\nfolly  not to destroy some building so that an\tentire\ttown
\nmay be saved from the conflagration, as will appear from the
\nfollowing  historic  incident referred to in  Respublica  v.
\nSparhawk(3):\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  find,  indeed, a  memorable\tinstance  of
\n\t      folly  recorded- in the 3 vol. of\t Clarendon’s
\n\t      History, where it is mentioned,, that the Lord
\n\t      Mayor of London in 1666. when the city was  on
\n\t      fire,  would  not\t give  directions  for,\t  or
\n\t      consent  to,  the pulling\t down  forty  wooden
\n\t      houses  or  to removing  the  furniture,\tetc.
\n\t      belonging\t to the lawyers of the temple,\tthen
\n\t      on   the\tcircuit,  for  fear  he\t should\t  be
\n\t      answerable for a trespass; and in\t consequence
\n\t      of  this\tconduct, half that  great  city\t was
\n\t      burnt.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If  Art.  31(5)(b)(ii)<\/a> is regarded as a saving\tclause\twith
\nregard\tto the police power of the State, it is\t clear\tthat
\nunder a law designed to promote public health or to  prevent
\ndanger\tto  life  or  property the State  may  in  cases  of
\nimminent  peril\t destroy  or impair  the  value\t of  private
\nproperty without any obligation to pay compensation, but  it
\ncannot\t arrogate  to  itself  the  power  to  acquire\t and
\nappropriate to its own use private property without  payment
\nof compensation.\n<\/p>\n
We  shall now examine our earlier decisions in The State  of
\nWest Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose<\/a> and Other(1) and  Dwarkadas
\nShrinivas of Bombay v. The SholapurSpinning and Weaving
\nCo<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 276 U.S. 182:72 L.Ed. 523, 527.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 344 U.S. 149:97 L.Ed. 157.\n<\/p>\n
(3) 1 Dall. 357, 363: 1 L.Ed. 174.\n<\/p>\n
(4) [1954] S.C.R. 587.\n<\/p>\n
571<\/span><\/p>\n
Pd., and others(1), where reference was made to the concepts
\nof’ eminent domain and police power in relation to cls.\t (1)
\nand   (2)  of  Art.  31<\/a>\t before\t the  Constitution   (Fourth
\nAmendment)  Act\t and  Art. 31(5)(b)(ii).<\/a>   The\tdecision  of
\nPatanjali Sastri C. J., Mahajan, Bose, Ghulam Hasan, JJ.  in
\nthose two cases (Das and Jagannadhadas, JJ. dissenting)\t was
\nthat cls. (1) and (2) of Art. 31<\/a> were not mutually exclusive
\nin  scope  but\tshould be read together\t and  understood  as
\ndealing with the same subject, namely, the protection of the
\nright to property by means of limitations on the State power
\nto take away private property, the deprivation contemplated’
\nby  cl.\t (1) being no other than the acquisition  or  taking
\npossession  of\tthe property referred to in  cl.  (2).\t The
\neffect\tof  the majority, decision was\tthat  a\t substantial
\nabridgment  of\tthe rights of ownership which  withheld\t the
\nproperty  from the possession and enjoyment of the owner  or
\nseriously impaired its use or enjoyment by him or materially
\nreduced\t its value amounted to a taking of  property  within
\nthe  purview  of  Art. 31(2).<\/a>  On the  subject\tof  eminent.
\ndomain\tand- police power in relation to cls. (1),  (2)\t and
\n(5)(b)(ii) the learned Judges expressed different  opinions.
\nPatanjali  Sastri, C. J. at pp. 605, 606, 610, 612  and\t 614
\nsaid  that (a) the power of’ eminent domain was the  subject
\nof express grant in Entry No. 33: of List I and Entry No. 36
\nof  List  II  and  Art. 31<\/a> defined  the\t limitation  on\t the
\nexercise of this power, (b) cl. (5)(b)(ii) of Art. 31<\/a> showed
\nthat but for that clause compensation would be payable\teven
\nfor  the exercise of the State’s power in an  emergency\t to,
\ndemolish an intervening building to prevent a  conflagration
\nfrom  spreading and it was because of that clause that\tsuch
\ndestruction  did not entail liability to  pay  compensation,\n<\/p>\n
(c) the American doctrine of police power as a distinct\t and
\nspecific  legislative  power  was  not\trecognised  in\t our
\nConstitution,\t(d)  the  power\t of’  social   control\t and
\nregulation was implicit in the entire legislative field,  it
\nwas  not  conferred  by cl. (1) nor did cl.  (5)  define  it
\nexhaustively in relation to property rights.  Mahajan, J. at
\npp.  695  to697 and 700 said that (a) cl.  (2)\tdefined\t the
\npowers of the legislature in the field of eminent domain and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  cl.  (5)(b)(ii) was$ not inserted by  way\tof  abundant
\ncaution\t but was a comprehensivesaving clause  defining\t the
\nclasses\t of  deprivation  of  property\twithout\t payment  of
\ncompensation, as for instance in cases of emergency in order
\nto  prevent  a\tfire from spreading.  Bose,  J.\t at  p.\t 734
\ndeprecated  the use of doubtful words like police power\t and
\neminent\t domain in construing our Constitution.\t Das,  J  at
\npp. 638, 643, 645, 647-650 said, that (a) cl. (1) dealt with
\npolice power and Art. 31(2)<\/a> dealt with the power of  eminent
\ndomain,\t (b) cl. (5)(b)(ii) did not exhaustively define\t the
\npolice power; it was inserted by way of abundant caution  to
\nexcept\tfrom  the purview of cl. (2) some instances  of\t the
\nexercise  of  police  power  superficially  resembling\t the
\nexercise of the power of eminent domain and
\n(1) [1954] S.C.R. 674.\n<\/p>\n
572<\/span><\/p>\n
(c)  acquisition of land for any’ of the purposes  mentioned
\nin cl.the (5)(b)(ii) ‘was ‘precisely the kind of acquisition
\nwhich  was always made on payment of compensation under\t the
\nLand  Acquisition.   Act,  1894 and a  construction  of\t cl.
\n(5)(b)(ii)  which  took\t out of –Art. 31 (2)<\/a> a\tI  law\tmade
\n‘really and essentially in exercise of the power of  eminent
\ndomain could not readily be accepted as cogent -or  correct.
\nJagannadhadas, J. at pp. 669, 670 and 672 said that (a)\t cl.
\n(1) was not a declaration of the American doctrine of police
\npower  nor  had it reference only to the  power\t of  eminent
\ndomain,(b)     with  respect  to matters enumerated  in\t the
\nlegislative lists the legislature could exercise every power
\nincluding   the police power-if it was necessary  to  import
\nthis concept-in so far as it was not provided in Arts. 19(2)
\nto 19(6), 31(5)(b)(ii) or other specific provisions, (c)  an
\nacquisition  under  cl.\t (2)  did  not\tnecessarily  involve
\ntransfer  of title or possession and this was  indicated  by
\ncl.  (5)(b)(ii) which more often than not would cover  cases
\nof destruction of property.\n<\/p>\n
From  the ‘Several conflicting opinions expressed  in  those
\ntwo  cases  it\tis  difficult to say that  the\tCourt  or  a
\nmajority of Judges held that cl. (5)(b)(ii) saved the police
\npower  of  the\tState  in the  ,strict\ttechnical  sense  as
\nunderstood in American law.  All we need say is that if\t cl.
\n(5)(b)(ii)  is construed as saving the police power  of\t the
\nState,\tsuch police power must be exercised subject  to\t the
\nconstitutional\trestriction  as\t evolved  by  the   American
\njudicial   decisions   that  private  property\t cannot\t  be
\nappropriated, to public use without payment of compensation.
\nBut  we\t prefer\t to  construe  Art.  1<\/a>\tan  cl.\t  (5)(b)(ii)
\nuninfluenced by the American concepts of eminent domain\t and
\npolice power.\n<\/p>\n
We shall endeavour to ascertain the meaning of Art. 31(5)(b)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  in  the  context of Art. 31<\/a> as  it  stood\t before\t the
\nConstitution  (Fourth Amendment) Act and thereafter  in\t the
\ncontext of Art. 31<\/a> as it stands after the Fourth  Amendment.
\nArticle\t 31<\/a>  as\t it stood before  the  Constitution  (Fourth
\nAmendment) Act was in these ,terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “31(1).\tNo person shall be deprived  of\t his
\n\t      property save by authority of law.
\n\t      (2)   No\tproperty,  movable   or\t  immovable,
\n\t      including\t any interest in, or in any  company
\n\t      owning,\t any   commercial   of\t  industrial
\n\t      undertaking  shall be taken possession  of  or
\n\t      acquired\tfor  public purposes under  any\t law
\n\t      authorising  the taking of such possession  or
\n\t      such acquisition, unless the law provides\t for
\n\t      compensation for the property taken possession
\n\t      of or acquired and either fixes the amount  of
\n\t      the compensation, or specifies the  principles
\n\t      on  which.  and  the  manner  in\twhich,\t the
\n\t      compensation is to be determined and given.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
573<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (3)No such law as is referred to in clause (2)
\n\t      made by the legislature of a State shall\thave
\n\t      effect  unless such law, having been  reserved
\n\t      for  the consideration of the  President,\t has
\n\t      received his assent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4) If any Bill pending at the commencement of
\n\t      this  Constitution  in the  Legislature  of  a
\n\t      State  has, after it has, been passed by\tsuch
\n\t      Legislature,    been   reserved\t for\tthe.
\n\t      consideration   of  the  President   and\t has
\n\t      received\this  assent,  then,  notwithstanding
\n\t      anything\tin  this Constitution,\tthe  law  so
\n\t      assented to shall not be called in question in
\n\t      any  court on the ground that  it\t contravenes
\n\t      the provisions of clause (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5) Nothing in clause (2) shall affect-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   the provisions of any existing law other
\n\t      than  a law to which the provisions of  clause
\n\t      (6) apply, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) the provisions of any law which the  State
\n\t      may hereafter make-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i) for the purpose of imposing or levying any
\n\t      tax or penalty, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  for\t the promotion of public  health  or
\n\t      the prevention of danger to life or  property,
\n\t      or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)  in pursuance of any  agreement  entered
\n\t      into between the Government of the Dominion of
\n\t      India  or\t the  Government of  India  and\t the
\n\t      Government of any other country, or otherwise,
\n\t      with respect to property declared by law to be
\n\t      evacuee property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (6) Any law of the State enacted not more than
\n\t      eighteen\tmonths\tbefore the  commencement  of
\n\t      this Constitution may within three months from
\n\t      such   commencement   be\tsubmitted   to\t the
\n\t      President\t   for\t his   certification;\t and
\n\t      thereupon,   if\tthe  President\t by   public
\n\t      notification  so\tcertifies, it shall  not  be
\n\t      called in question in any court on the  ground
\n\t      that  it contravenes the provisions of  clause
\n\t      (2)  of  this article or has  contravened\t the
\n\t      provisions  of sub-section (2) of section\t 209
\n\t      of the Government of India Act, 1935.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Clauses\t (1)  and  (2) of Art. 31<\/a> were\tlimitations  on\t the
\nexecutive and the legislative powers of the State to deprive
\nany  person  of\t his  property.\t  Clause  (2)  imposed\t the
\nlimitation  that the law authorising the taking of  property
\nfor  public purposes must provide for compensation  for\t the
\nproperty.  Clause (3) imposed the additional limitation that
\nif  such  a law was made by the legislature of a  State.  it
\nmust have received the assent of the President.\t Clauses (4)
\nand (6) saved certain laws from the operation of cl. (2) and
\nthose laws could not be called in question in any Court on
\n574<\/span>
\nthe  ground  that  it contravened cl.  (2).   Clause  (5)(a)
\nprovided -that nothing in cl. (2) would affect any  existing
\nlaw  other  than a law to which the provisions\tof  cl.\t (6)
\napplied.   Under cls. (5)(b)(i) .and (5)(b)(iii) nothing  in
\ncl.  (2) would affect the provisions of laws .made  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  imposing  or levying any tax  or  penalty\t:and
\ncertain\t laws with respect to evacuee property.\t We are\t not
\nconcerned  in  this appeal with the interpretation  of\tcls.
\n(4),  (5)(a),  (5)(b)(i), (5)(b)(iii) and 6. We\t express  no
\nopinion on their interpretation.  Clause (5)(b)(ii) provided
\nthat nothing in cl. (2) would .affect the provisions of\t any
\nlaw which the State might make after the commencement of the
\nConstitution  “for  the promotion of public  health  or\t the
\nprevention  of\tdanger\tto life or property.” It  is  to  be
\nnoticed that cl. (5)(b)(ii) saved laws for the promotion  of
\npublic\thealth\tor  the prevention of  danger  -to  life  or
\nproperty.   It\tdid  not save laws for\tthe  acquisition  of
\nproperty.   We\tare satisfied that cl.\t(5)(b)(ii)  was\t not
\nintended  to  except laws for the acquisition  of  property,
\nfrom the purview of cl. (2).  Any substantial abridgment  of
\nthe rights of ownership including destruction and  injurious
\naffection of the property and taking away its possession and
\nenjoyment  from the owner amounted to a taking\tof  property
\nwithin\tthe  purview  of cl. (2) as  interpreted  in  Subodh
\nGopal’s\t case(1) and Dwarkadas Shrinivas’s case(1).   A\t law
\nfor  promotion of public health or for prevention of  danger
\nto life or property sometimes has to provide for destruction
\nand  impairment of value of private property and the  taking
\nof  temporary possession of the property by the\t State.\t  It
\nmay  be\t necessary to destroy contaminated food or  to\tburn
\nplague-infested\t buildings  for\t the  promotion\t of   public
\nhealth,\t to  pull  down a building to prevent  a  fire\tfrom
\nspreading and consuming other buildings in the locality,  to
\ndemolish  a building in a ruinous condition endangering\t the
\nsafety\tof its occupants and other persons in its  vicinity.
\nThe  destruction  and the temporary taking of  property\t for
\nsuch purposes, though necessary for promoting public  health
\nor preventing danger to life or property, amounted to taking
\nof  property within cl. (2).  But for cl. (5)(b)(ii), a\t law
\nauthorising  such a taking of property would have  been\t in-
\nvalid\tunless\t it  provided  for   compensation.    Clause
\n(5)(b)(ii) saved such laws from the operation of cl. (2) and
\nthose  laws were not invalid because they authorised such  a
\ntaking without payment’ of compensation.  A law\t authorising
\nthe  abatement\tof a public menace by destroying  or  taking
\ntemporary  possession  of private properties  if  the  peril
\ncannot be abated in some other way can be regarded as a\t law
\nfor  promotion of public health or prevention of  danger  to
\nlife or property within the purview of cl. (5)(b)(ii).\t But
\nit  is\tnot  possible  to  say\tthat  a\t law  for  permanent
\nacquisition  of property is such a law.\t The object  of\t the
\nacquisition  may  be the ,opening of a public park  for\t the
\nimprovement of public health or
\n(1) [1954] S.C.R. 587.\t   (2) [1954]  S.C.R. 674.\n<\/p>\n
575<\/span><\/p>\n
the  erection of an embankment to prevent danger to life  or
\nproperty   from\t  flood,.   Whatever  the  object   of\t the
\nacquisition  may  be, the acquired property belongs  to\t the
\nState.\t The State is free to deal with the property  as  it
\nchooses after the acquisition.\tIt may close the public park
\nand  use  the property for other purposes.   The  river\t may
\nrecede\tor  change its course so that it may  no  longer  be
\nnecessary to keep the embankment and the State may then sell
\nthe  property and appropriate the sale proceeds to  its\t own
\nuse.   Clause (5)(b)(ii) was intended to be an exception  to
\ncl.  (2) and must be ,strictly construed.   Acquisitions  of
\nproperty  for  the  opening  of a public  park\tor  for\t the
\nerection of dams and embankments were always made under\t the
\nLand  Acquisition Act<\/a>, and it could not have  been  intended
\nthat  such  acquisitions  could be made\t under\tlaws  coming
\nwithin\tthe  purview of cl. (5)(b)(ii) without\tpayment\t (of
\ncompensation.\tWe  have  come to the  conclusion  that\t cl.
\n(5)(b)\t(ii)  did  not\tprotect\t laws  for  acquisition\t  of
\nproperties from the (operation of cl. (2) as it stood before
\nthe Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act.
\nThe Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act amended cl. (2)\t and
\ninserted a new clause (2A).  The amended cl. (2) and the new
\ncl. (2A) are in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “31(2).\tNo  property shall  be\tcompulsorily
\n\t      acquired\tor requisitioned save for  a  public
\n\t      purpose  and save by authority of a law  which
\n\t      provides for compensation for the property  so
\n\t      acquired or requisitioned and either fixes the
\n\t\t\t    amount  of\tthe compensation or  speci
\nfies  the
\n\t      principles on which, and the manner in  which,
\n\t      the  compensation\t is  to\t be  determined\t and
\n\t      given;  and  no such law shall  be  called  in
\n\t      question in any, court on the ground that\t the
\n\t      compensation  provided  by  that\tlaw  is\t not
\n\t      adequate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2A).   Where a law does not provide  for\t the
\n\t      transfer\t of  the  ownership  or\t  right\t  to
\n\t      possession of any property to the State or  to
\n\t      a\t corporation  owned  or\t Controlled  by\t the
\n\t      State,  it shall not be deemed to provide\t for
\n\t      the  compulsory acquisition or  requisitioning
\n\t      of property, notwithstanding that it  deprives
\n\t      any person of his property.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  effect  of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment)  Act  is
\nthat  a\t deprivation of property short of  transfer  of\t the
\nownership or the right to possession of any property to\t the
\nState  is  not within the purview of cl. (2).\tA  law\tmade
\nafter the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act providing\t for
\ndestruction  of property or impairment of its value  is\t not
\ninvalid\t  because  it  does  not  provide  for\tpayment\t  of
\ncompensation.  But we have seen that in the context of\tArt.
\n31<\/a>  as it stood before the Constitution\t (Fourth  Amendment)
\nAct,  cl. (5)(b)(ii) was not intended to save laws  for\t the
\nacquisition of property from the operation of cl. (2).\t The
\nFourth Amendment did not amend cl. (5)(b)(ii) nor change its
\noriginal  meaning.   Cases  of destruction  of\tproperty  or
\nimpairment
\n576<\/span>
\nof its value are no longer within the purview of cl. (2) and
\nit is.., not necessary to invoke cl. (5)(b)(ii) to save laws
\nmade after the Fourth Amendment providing for such forms  of
\ntaking\tof  property.  But even now, cl. (5)(b)(ii)  is\t not
\nwholly\t otiose.   Clause  (5)(b)(ii)  will   protect\tlaws
\nproviding  for\trequisitioning or  temporary  occupation  of
\nproperty  strictly necessary for promotion of public  health
\nor  prevention of danger to life or property.  The  law\t may
\nauthorise the State to requisition the property\t temporarily
\nfor   abating\tthe  public  menace   without\tpayment\t  of
\ncompensation  if the menace cannot be abated in\t some  other
\nrecognised  way.   We  hold that a law\tfor  acquisition  of
\nproperty is not protected by cl. (5)(b)(ii) of Art. 31<\/a> as it
\nnow stands after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act.
\nIn  our opinion, Act No. 6 of 1955 is a law for\t acquisition
\nof  property and not a law for preventing danger to life  or
\nproperty  and  is not protected by cl. (5)(b)(ii)  from\t the
\noperation of cl. (2).\n<\/p>\n
The Assam Embankment and Drainage Act, 1941 (Assam Act<\/a> No. 7
\nof 1941) which is in force in the State of Assam shows\tthat
\nflood control, drainage and construction of embankments\t are
\npossible  without acquisition of private property.  The\t Act<\/a>
\nrecognises  both private and public embankments.  Section  4<\/a>
\nof  the\t Act  authorises the Embankment\t Officer  to  remove
\nobstructions  endangering the stability of  embankments\t and
\ndrains,\t  to  remove  and  alter  embankments\tand   drains
\nendangering safety to any town or village or likely to cause
\nloss of property and to construct embankments and drains the
\nabsence\t of  which  endangers  the safety  of  any  town  or
\nvillage.   In case of grave and imminent danger to  life  or
\nproperty he may forthwith commence the execution of any such
\nwork.\tSections  7<\/a>  to 9<\/a> contemplate  the  preparation\t and
\nexecution of schemes for improvement of drains,\t embankments
\nand flood protection.  The scheme may provide for the charge
\nof  an\tannual rate on all lands benefited  by\tthe  scheme.
\nSection 10<\/a> provides for payment of compensation for any loss
\narising inter alia from the carrying out of works under\t ss.
\n4<\/a>  and 9<\/a>. This Act<\/a> is in operation in Assam for the last  25
\nyears\tand  necessary\tmeasures  for  flood   control\t and
\nconstruction of embankments have been carried out under this
\nAct.   This Act<\/a> shows that it is possible for the  State  to
\ntake   all   necessary\tmeasures  for  flood   control\t and
\nconstruction of embankments without arrogating to itself the
\npower  of  acquiring  private property\twithout\t payment  of
\nadequate compensation.\n<\/p>\n
It follows that Act No. 6 of 1955 is not protected from\t the
\noperation  of  Art.  31(2)<\/a> either by Art.  31A<\/a>\tor  by\tArt.
\n31(5)(b)(ii).<\/a>\tThe  next question is whether Act No.  6  of
\n1955  contravenes Art. 31(2).<\/a>  The constitutionality of\t the
\nAct  must  be judged by Art. 31(2)<\/a> as it  stood\t before\t the
\nConstitution  (Fourth Amendment) Act.  In The State of\tWest
\nBengal v. Bela Banerjee and Others<\/a>(1)
\n(1) [1954] S.C.R. 558.\n<\/p>\n
577<\/span><\/p>\n
the   Court   held  that  while\t the   legislature   had   a
\ndiscretionary  power  of laying down  the  principles  which
\nshould govern the determination of the amount to be given to
\nthe  owner  for the property appropriated,  such  principles
\nmust  ensure that what is determined as payable was  a\tjust
\nequivalent  of\twhat  the owner was  deprived  of  and\tthat
\nsubject\t to this basic requirement of  full  indemnification
\nfor  the expropriated owner, the Constitution  allowed\tfree
\nplay  to  the legislative ‘judgment as\tto  what  principles
\nshould\tguide the determination of the amount payable.\t The
\nCourt decided that West Bengal Land Development and Planning
\nAct, 1948 passed primarily for the settlement of  immigrants
\nfrom  East  Bengal fixing the market value on  December\t 31,
\n1946 as the ceiling on compensation without reference to the
\nvalue of the land at the time of the acquisition which might
\nbe  made many years later offended Art. 31(2)<\/a> as it did\t not
\nensure payment of the just equivalent of the land.  The\t Act<\/a>
\nwas not saved from the operation of Art. 31(2)<\/a> by Art. 31(5)<\/a>
\nas it was not certified by the President as provided for  by
\nArt. 31(6).<\/a>  In West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co.  Ltd.,
\nv.  State of Madras<\/a>,(1), the Court rejected  the  contention
\nthat  the Madras Electricity Supply  Undertakings  (Acquisi-
\ntion) Act No. 19 of 1954 was violative of Art. 31(2<\/a>), as the
\nappellant  did\tnot furnish any material to  show  that\t the
\ncompensation payable under the Act was not a just equivalent
\nof  the\t property  acquired.   In  State  of  Madras  v.  D.
\nNamasivaya  Mudaliar<\/a>(2),  the  Court held  that\t the  Madras
\nLignite\t (Acquisition of Land) Act No. 21 of 1953  providing
\nfor  assessment of compensation on the basis of\t the  market
\nvalue  of the land prevailing on August 28, 1947 and not  on
\nthe  date on which notification was issued under s. 4(1)<\/a>  of
\nthe  Land  Acquisition Act and providing  that\tin  awarding
\ncompensation the value of non-agricultural improvements com-
\nmenced\tsince  April  28,  1967\t would\tnot  be\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration  did not ensure payment of just equivalent  of
\nthe  land  appropriated\t and was in  contravention  of\tArt.
\n31(2).<\/a>\tNow, Act No. 6 of 1955 by s. 6(1)<\/a> provides that\t the
\nowner of the land shall get compensation for land  including
\nstanding crops and trees, if any, but excluding buildings or
\nstructure  a  sum  not exceeding 40 times  the\tannual\tland
\nrevenue\t in  case of periodic patta land and  15  times\t the
\nannual land revenue in case of annual patta land.  The\tres-
\npondent\t  in  his  petition  definitely\t charged  that\t the
\ncompensation   payable\tunder  the  Act\t was  illusory\t and
\ninadequate.  The State of Assam made no attempt to show that
\na  multiple of land revenue payable for the land is  a\tjust
\nequivalent of or has any relation to the market value of the
\nland on the date of the acquisition.  It is well known\tthat
\nsince the assessment of land revenue in Assam many years ago
\nthe  market  value  of lands has  increased  by\t leaps\t,and
\nbounds.\t  The  latter part of s. 6(1)<\/a> makes  a\tpretence  of
\nsaying\tthat in determining the compensation  the  Collector
\nshall take
\n(1) [1963] 2 S.C.R. 747.\t(2)  [1964] 6 S.C.R. 936.
\nL\/J(N)6SCI-11
\n578<\/span>
\ninto  account  the value of the land as at the date  of\t the
\nacquisition  and  other\t factors, but  this  is\t meaningless
\nconsidering  that  under  the  first part  of  s.  6(1)<\/a>\t the
\ncompensation  cannot exceed a fixed multiple of\t the  annual
\nland  revenue.\tSection 6(2)<\/a> provides that the\towner  shall
\nget  compensation for the building or structure, if  any,  a
\nsum equivalent to the sale proceeds of the materials of\t the
\nsame  plus  15 per cent thereof.  The sale proceeds  of\t the
\nmaterials  cannot  be regarded as a just equivalent  of\t the
\nvalue  of  the\tbuilding  as it stood at  the  time  of\t the
\nacquisition.   In our opinion.\tAct No. 6 of 1955  does\t not
\nensure payment of a just equivalent of the land appropriated
\nand is violative of Art. 31(2)<\/a> as it stood before the Fourth
\nAmendment.\n<\/p>\n
The next question is whether Act No. 6 of 1955 offends\tArt.
\n14<\/a>  of the Constitution.  The Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894  is
\nin force in the State of Assam and under it private property
\nmay be acquired for any public purpose on payment of  market
\nvalue  of  the land at the date of the\tpublication  of\t the
\nnotification  under  s. 4(1)<\/a>.  Section 17<\/a> of the  Act  makes
\nspecial\t provision  for the speedy acquisition of  waste  or
\narable\tland  in cases of emergency.  While that Act  is  in
\nforce  in the State of Assam, the State\t Legislature  passed
\nAct No. 6 of 1955 providing for speedy acquisition ,of\tland
\nfor the public purpose of carrying out works or other  deve-
\nlopment\t measures  in  connection  with\t flood\tcontrol\t  or
\nprevention of erosion on payment of compensation assessed on
\nthe  basis  of a multiple of the annual land  revenue.\t The
\nresult is that in the State ,of Assam some land may be taken
\nunder  Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955 for the purpose of works\t and
\nother\tmeasures  in  connection  with\tflood  control\t and
\nprevention  of\terosion on payment of  nominal\tcompensation
\nwhile  an  adjoining  land may be  taken  for  other  public
\npurposes  under\t the  Land Acquisition\tAct<\/a>  on\t payment  of
\nadequate   compensation.   The\tquestion  is  whether\tthis
\ndifferential  treatment of land acquired under the two\tActs
\nis permissible under Art. 14.<\/a>  The constitutional  guarantee
\nof Art. 14<\/a> requires that all persons shall be treated  alike
\nin  like circumstances and conditions.\tThe Article  permits
\nreasonable  classification and differential treatment  based
\non substantial differences having reasonable relation to the
\nobjects\t sought to be achieved.\t It is not possible to\thold
\nthat the differential treatment of the lands acquired  under
\nthe  Land  Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894 and  those  acquired  under
\n‘Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955 has any reasonable relation to\t the
\nobject\tof acquisition by the State.  In P. V.\tMudaliar  v.
\nDy.  Collector<\/a>(1), the Court held that the Land\t Acquisition
\n(Madras\t Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for the\t acquisition
\nof lands for housing schemes and laying down principles\t for
\nfixing\tcompensation different from those prescribed in\t the
\nLand   Acquisition   Act<\/a>   was\t violative   of\t  Art.\t 14.<\/a>
\nDiscrimination\tbetween persons whose lands  were  -acquired
\nunder  housing schemes and those whose lands were  ;acquired
\nfor other purposes could not be sustained, under Art. 14.<\/a>
\n[1965] 1 S.C.R. 614.\n<\/p>\n
579<\/span><\/p>\n
Although  it was contended that the amending Act was  passed
\nto  meet  an  urgent demand to clear up slums,\tthe  Act  as
\nfinally\t evolved  was not confined to any such\tproblem\t and
\nland  could be acquired under the amending Act\tfor  housing
\nschemes and other objectives.  The Court said at p. 634:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Out of adjacent lands of the same quality\t and
\n\t      value,  one  may\tbe acquired  for  a  housing
\n\t      scheme  under the Amending Act<\/a> and  the  other
\n\t      for a hospital under the principal Act; out of
\n\t      two  adjacent  plots  belonging  to  the\tsame
\n\t      individual and of the same quality and  value.
\n\t      one  may be acquired under the  principal\t Act
\n\t      and  the other under the Amending\t Act<\/a>.\tFrom
\n\t      whatever\taspect the matter is looked at.\t the
\n\t      alleged  differences  have  no  I\t  reasonable
\n\t      relation to the object sought to be achieved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  our\t opinion, the classification of\t land  required\t for
\nworks  and other measures in connection with  flood  control
\nand prevention of erosion and land required for other public
\npurposes has no reasonable relation to the object sought  to
\nbe achieved. viz., acquisition of the land by the State.  In
\neither case, the owner loses his land and in his place,\t the
\nState  becomes\tthe owner.  There is  unjust  discrimination
\nbetween\t owners\t of  land similarly  situated  by  the\tmere
\naccident of some land being required for purposes  mentioned
\nin Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955 and some land being required\t for
\nother  purposes.   We hold that Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of  1955  is
\nviolative of Art. 14.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that Act No.  6
\nof  1955  is violative of Art. 14<\/a> on the  additional  ground
\nthat  it  is  open  to the  State  to  acquire\tproperty  in
\nconnection  with  flood\t control or  prevention\t of  erosion
\neither under the Land Acquisition Act<\/a> or under Assam Act<\/a> No.
\n6 of 1955 at its sweet will.  There is considerable force in
\nthis  contention.   The\t record shows that  even  after\t the
\npassing of Act No. 6 of 1955 the State of Assam has acquired
\nother  lands  for erecting embankments\tin  connection\twith
\nflood  control and has paid full compensation to  owners  of
\nthose lands under   the\t Land  Acquisition  Act<\/a>.    However,
\nCounsel for the appellants    con-tends that in view of Art.
\n254(2)<\/a> of the Constitution Assam   Act\t No.   6   of\t1955
\nsupersedes the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>, 1894 in so\t far as\t the
\nlater  Act enables acquisition of property for the  purposes
\nof  works and other development measures in connection\twith
\nflood control or prevention of erosion.\t We have not  ‘heard
\nfull  arguments on this new contention realised\t by  counsel
\nfor the appellants.  We, therefore, do not propose to decide
\nit  or to strike down Act No. 6 of 1955 on the\tground\tthat
\nthe State may acquire lands at its option either under Assam
\nAct<\/a>  No. 6 of 1955 or under the Land Acquisition  Act<\/a>.\t For
\nthe purposes of this case it is sufficient to say that Assam
\nAct<\/a>  No.  6 of 1955 is violative of Art. 14<\/a>  on\t The  ground
\nmentioned in the earlier paragraph.\n<\/p>\n
580<\/span><\/p>\n
it  follows  that Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955  is  violative  of
\nArts.  14 and 31(2) of the Constitution and must  be  struck
\ndown.  The next question is whether Assam Act<\/a> No. 21 of 1960
\nis  valid.  This Act<\/a> provides that any land taken  over\t for
\nthe purposes of construction of embankments or carrying\t out
\nworks or other development measures in connection with flood
\ncontrol\t or prevention of erosion before it came into  force
\nshall  be  deemed to have been validly\tacquired  under\t the
\nprovisions of Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955 unless the acquisition
\nwas  validly made under any other law for the time being  in
\nforce.\t By  force of Assam Act<\/a> No. 21 of 1960 the  land  so
\ntaken  over is deemed to be. acquired under Assam Act<\/a> No.  6
\nof 1955.  As Assam Act<\/a> No. 6 of 1955 is invalid, the  deemed
\nacquisition  under  Assam  Act<\/a> No. 21  of  1960\t is  equally
\ninvalid.   The State legislature has no power to enact\tthat
\nan acquisition made under a constitutionally invalid Act  is
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel\t submitted that Assam Act<\/a> No. 21 of 1960 is a  piece
\nof   legislation   providing   for   acquisition   of\tland
\nindependently  of the earlier Act and the validity  of\tthis
\nAct  must be judged by reference to Art. 31(2)<\/a> as  it  stood
\nafter  the  Constitution  (Fourth Amendment)  Act.   We\t are
\nunable\tto  accept  this  contention.\tIn  support  of\t his
\ncontention. counsel drew our attention to the provisions  of
\nss.  2,\t 3,  4\tand 5. Under s. 2<\/a>, the\tland  deemed  to  be
\nacquired  under the earlier Act vests and is deemed to\thave
\nvested\tin the State Government from the date the  land\t was
\nactually taken possession of.  Under s. 3<\/a>, the Collector  is
\nenjoined to assess the value of the land deemed to have been
\nacquired  under s. 2<\/a> in accordance with the principles\tlaid
\ndown in s. 6<\/a> and to make an award under s. 8<\/a> of the  earlier
\nAct  and  the owner is entitled to claim  certain  interest.
\nSection 4<\/a> protects action taken in good faith in  connection
\nwith the land deemed to have been acquired under s. 2<\/a>. Under
\ns.  5,\texcept\tas otherwise provided  under  the  Act,\t the
\nprovisions  of the earlier Act shall apply mutatis  mutandis
\nin  respect of the acquisition of land deemed to  have\tbeen
\nacquired under s. 2<\/a>. It is to be seen that the core of Assam
\nAct<\/a>  No. 21 of 1960 is the deeming provision of s.  2<\/a>  under
\nwhich  certain\tlands are deemed to be\tacquired  under\t the
\nearlier Act.  As this deeming provision is invalid, all\t the
\nother ancillary provisions fall to the ground along with it.
\nThe  later  Act is entirely dependent  upon  the  continuing
\nexistence  and validity of the earlier Act.  As the  earlier
\nAct  is\t unconstitutional and has no  legal  existence,\t the
\nprovisions   of\t Act  No.  21  of  196O\t are  incapable\t  of
\nenforcement  and are invalid.  In view of this-\t conclusion,
\nthe  other questions with regard to the validity of Act\t No.
\n21 of 1960 do not arise.  The Assam High Court rightly\theld
\nthat  the notices of acquisition issued under Assam Act<\/a>\t No.
\n21 of 1960 are invalid.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal. fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n581<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 394, 1968 SCR (1) 561 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Wanchoo, K.N. (Cj), Bachawat, R.S., Ramaswami, V., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR, KAMRUP& ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: DURGA NATH SARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDeputy Commissioner And ... vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deputy Commissioner And ... vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-19T16:41:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"49 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-19T16:41:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\"},\"wordCount\":7975,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\",\"name\":\"Deputy Commissioner And ... vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-19T16:41:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Deputy Commissioner And ... vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deputy Commissioner And ... vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-19T16:41:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"49 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967","datePublished":"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-19T16:41:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967"},"wordCount":7975,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967","name":"Deputy Commissioner And ... vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-19T16:41:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deputy-commissioner-and-vs-durga-nath-sarma-on-15-september-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deputy Commissioner And … vs Durga Nath Sarma on 15 September, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=251307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}