Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. He further contends in view of 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India, Right to hold property is no more a fundamental right, it is only a Constitutional right and therefore, the Act has been enacted by the State pursuant to the Article 31-C of the Constitution of India. In view of deletion of Article- 19(1)(f), the learned Single Judge could not have declared sec.20 of the Act as unconstitutional. According to him, the amount payable u/s 20 is more or less analogous to the amount deposited in respect of various properties acquired by the State, namely, Bangalore Palace under the Bangalore Palace Act, acquisition of Mysore Palace Act and Rorick Estate.

10. Per contra, Mr.Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submits that the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General holds no water because the Act in question has come into existence pursuant to the ascent received by the President of India on 29.10.1974, on which date Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution were in force. According to him, the argument of learned Advocate General could have been considered by this court, provided the Act in question had been enacted by the State, subsequent to 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India. According to him, 44th Amendment has come into force w.e.f. 20th June 1979 nearly 4 years after the Act in question has been enacted by the State. Taking us through Article 300-A, he contends that the compensation payable to land loosers under the Act in question cannot be illusory and the word used amount as u/s 20 as three hundred times of the tax payable to the Municipality would be illusory, it will not be nearer to the market value, if the land has been acquired for public purpose under any other enactment. He further contends that the Judgment relied upon by the Advocate General is not concerning the facts involved in the present case as the said Judgment was rendered while considering Special enactment. The said Judgment has been delivered by Their Lordships holding that the properties were acquired by the State under a special statute to give effect to the provisions of Article 31-A(1)(a) of the Constitution and in the circumstances he contends that the Judgment in K.T.PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED has no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of this case. According to him, the present Act in question does not get the protection under Article 31-C of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal.

11. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we notice the following undisputed facts in the present appeal:

The learned counsel appearing for both the parties submit that in view of 44th Amendment, Right to hold the property is no more a fundamental rights, it is a Constitutional right given to a party. It is also not in dispute that the Act in question has been enacted by the State to give effect to Directive Principles of the State Policy, i.e. to provide better health to the general public. It is also not in dispute that the Act has come into force on 29.10.1974 much prior to the 44th amendment, on which date, the provisions of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(3) were in force and therefore what is to be considered in this appeal is:

15. From the reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the Judgment, we are of the opinion that it is for the State to demonstrate before the Court that amount fixed u/s 20 of the Act is not illusory and it is just and reasonable compensation.

16. The present Act cannot get any immunity under Article 31-C of the Constitution of India, since the present Act has been enacted prior to the 44th Amendment. If the present Act had been enacted after the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, we are of the view that the Judgment in K.T.PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA would squarely applicable. As stated supra, the present Act is enacted prior to the 44th amendment. In such circumstances, it is for the State that the amount fixed u/s 20 of the Act is the market value and it is clear as no land looser can be deprived of his property without paying the reasonable compensation. But unfortunately, in this case, State has not made any efforts before us to show that three hundred times of the assessment fixed by the Municipality would be the reasonable compensation or very near to the market value. In such circumstances, we are of the view that if the learned Single Judge has held Sec.20 of the Act as unconstitutional, we cannot lightly interfere with the same.