Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

That takes us to the question of the constitutional validity of section 78A to section 78G. The view taken by the High Court on this point also is difficult to understand. The High Court appears to have though that these sections suffer from the voice of excessive delegation of legislative power because "for determining what land shall bear the burden of that fee?' (that is betterment fee) "arbitrary and uncontrolled power has been given to the Trust or its engineers either to include or not to include within the scheme lands which are not required for the execution thereof" and "it leaves to the Trust and/ or its employees to determine arbitrarily what shall be the extent of the area comprised in the': Scheme by enabling them to include in the scheme lands which are not required for execution of the scheme." This reasoning is clearly based on an erroneous premise. It is not correct to say that it is left to the unfettered and unregulated discretion of the Board and/or its employees to decide what lands to include in the scheme, apart from those required for the execution of the scheme. Section 39, to which we have already referred, lays down the factors which would guide the Board in deciding what area should be included in the scheme. It is only when the Board finds that for carrying out any of the four purposes set out in section 39, it is expedient to lay out new street or to alter existing street, that the Board can proceed to frame a scheme for such area as it thinks fit and the selection of the area by the Board would, therefore, be guided by the purpose for which the scheme is to be framed. Then again, the decision of the Board in regard to the lands to be included in the scheme is not final. Where, by reason of the making of the scheme, the value of any land included in the scheme has, in the opinion of the Board, increased in value and a betterment fee is, therefore, payable by the owner of the land, an opportunity is given to 'him to dissent from the recovery of such betterment fee and to state his reasons why be so dissents and the Board is then required to give him a hearing and ultimately, if proper case is made out, the Board may modify the scheme by excluding such land and even if the Board is not inclined to make any such modification, the State Government, while giving its sanction, may still take into account the dissent made by the owner of the land and consider the reasons given by him, and if satisfied, exclude such land from the scheme at the time of giving sanction. It will, therefore, be seen that not only is guidance given to the Board in selecting the lands to be included in the scheme, but there are also safeguards provided with a view to ensuring that lands are not arbitrarily or capriciously included in the scheme. Even after the scheme is sanctioned by the State Government, it is, open to the owner of the land to show that in fact the land would not increase in value by reason of the making of the scheme. The betterment fee being co-related to the increase in the value of the land, the, Board assessing the amount of betterment fee under section 78-B would have to determine objectively whether there is any increase in the value of the land and if so, assess the amount of betterment fee on that basis. If the owner of the land dissents from the assessment made by the Board, he can have the matter referred to arbitrators and the arbitrators would then determine the amount of betterment fee and while doing so, they would naturally have to find out whether there is any increase in the value of the land at all and if there is, then what is the quantum of such increase. The owner of the land is given an opportunity under the scheme of section 78A to section 78G to have this question determined by a body of two independent arbitrators who would objectively determine whether there is any increase in the value of the land on account of the making of the scheme. These being the relevant provisions, it is difficult to see how section 78-B to section 78-G could be regarded as suffering from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. The attack against the validity of these sections on the basis of infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution must also fail since the challenge under Article 14 is only another facet of the challenge on the ground of excessive delegation of legislative power. We are, therefore, of the view that section 78-B to section 78G are valid and the High Court was wrong in striking them down as ultra vires and void. We cannot part with this case without making one final observation. The unarguably small dimension of the constitutional question raised here is apparent from what we have said. This Court has dual responsibility to the country. It has to decide the cases brought before it justly and satisfactorily and at the same time, liquidate arrears of pending cases. Both bear upon the credibility of the judicial system. But because of article 144A brought in by the Forty Second Amendment Act, seven judges of this Court have to sit and hear every case where the constitutionality of an Act, rule, bye-law or even a small notification is challenged. Processual pragmatism in the light of actual experience of the working of this Court, will easily convince any one that, in the context of the current docket explosion and long pendency of cases, the insistence on this inconvenient plurality which requires more than half the full strength of the Court to sit to hear such cases,, is a decisive step in the negative direction. Many questions of constitutional importance have already been covered by the rulings of this Court so that he who runs and reads may resolve them. To require seven judges to perform such jobs is surely supererogatory. The present appeal itself is a striking illustration. Where really important issues arise for consideration, any bench of this Court would certainly refer, where necessary, such matters for consideration or reconsideration by a large bench-less or more than seven, according to the requirement of the situation. To prescribe arithmetically is to petrify unimaginatively. We do not say anything about the validity of Article 144A one way or the other but merely highlight the paralysing impact on the highest court and the long-term cause of justice, flowing from the numerical rigidity newly inserted by the Forty Second Constitution Amendment Act. We hope and trust that this matter will receive urgent attention of Parliament.