RESEARCH PAPER

LAND ACQUISITION: Legal & Constitutional Implication

Submitted By:
MOHIT LATHWAL
(03116503512)
BBA LLB
1
CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this research paper is an authentic work written by MOHIT LATHWAL a
student of UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW & LEGAL STUDIES, Enrolment No.
03116503512, and has not received any previous academic credit at this or any other institution.

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our Dean Prof. Kanwal D.P. Singh for giving us
an opportunity at University School of Law and Legal Studies to develop the mental acumen to
undertake a research paper at the undergraduate level of study of law, foreseeing its benefits.

I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to Prof. Ravinder Kumar for allowing me to
work under his guidance and for being my mentor in this endeavour. I am highly indebted to
Prof. Ravinder Kumar for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing
necessary information regarding the research &also for his support in compiling the present
paper. Without his extended help and encouragement this research would not have been so
practically informative and educative for me.

3
INDEX

Chapter-1

*Purpose of land acquisition

*History of land acquisition

*Procedure of land acquisition

*Trends in constitutional development

*Compensation

*Public purpose

*Aim & objective

*Hypothesis

*Significance of study

*Research Methodology

Chapter-2

*Legal provision

Chapter-3

*Judicial trends

Chapter-4

*Conclusion

4
Chapter-1

INTRODUCTION

Property is the most crucial institution, with which man ended up noticeably concerned. Its
unique capacity is to secure physical presence. It is a social idea and being a social idea is a
formation of law. As indicated by Bentham, Property and law are conceived together die
together. He felt that under the watchful eye of laws were made there was no property and that
on the off chance that the laws were taken away property would cease1. In the event that the
meaning of property is analyzed from the Somewhat English American Law and from the
Russian Statute, they evidently mirror the opposing perspectives.

The fifth and fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says
that, "No individual should be denied of his life, freedom or property, without due procedure of
law". As indicated by it, property, the term in its more extensive sense, is the privilege of
domain, ownership, and energy of dispossession which might be gained over a physical thing,
and not the thing itself. Property, one might say, is the projection outside, of a man's identity.
Man is recognized by his physical and mental attributes. Furthermore, in the picture of the
individual must be incorporated his tastes, inclinations, as well as additionally the objects of
individual ownership constantly connected with him. These things accomplish their very own
unethical behavior.

The Indian view has dependably been that property, or at any rate, the ideal to its ownership, had
a place with the individual who put the land initially to gainful utilize. There is nothing hostile to
social in the idea of individual ownership. Indeed, even in socialist nations, the private
responsibility for that are fabricated by the people themselves is perceived. Possession of
property was a thing in the Affirmation of Human Rights. In the American Constitution, the
significance of this perspective was perceived to the degree that it was said that the assurance of
freedom of a man without anyone else's input included assurance of the privileges of property
and it was not important to have word 'property' incorporated into the revision to the constitution.
A national of India has the privilege to procure, hold and discarded the property. The

1
Bentham (1904). Theory of Legislation, 113

5
proprietorship what's more, control of the material assets of the group are so appropriated as best
to sub serve the benefit of everyone.

In India, amid Antiquated circumstances, when men were few on the substance of the earth, they
by and large had a migrant existence and moved with their crowds from place to put. Their
agrarian works were restricted. At this stage, the groups furthermore, crowds were more critical
than agribusiness and land was unassigned furthermore, unbounded. Be that as it may, as number
of groups expanded, the creation of an expansive amount of nourishment ended up noticeably
essential and the roaming life was found inadmissible. Farming accomplished more prominent
significance than the minor responsibility for and groups. Land must be allocated to the
cultivator and occupation and proceeded with ownership of land offered ascend to the idea of
property in arrive. The restrictive comfortable lived in the group instead of the individual and
there were visit encounters to decide the limit between the domain of the group and another. Be
that as it may, the regular property soon formed into isolated property in submission to a
powerful propensity of social advance.

The time passed, groups soon started to relate, either enthusiastically for motivations behind
insurance or unwillingly as the consequence of oppression by those whom better physical quality
slanted than the quest for arms, furthermore, the administering central expert must be kept up by
the commitment of its subjections. The legal advisory group of the Privy Chamber seen on
account of Adusumilli Suryanarayana v. Achuta Pothana2 that the responsibility for soil in arrive
in India has dependably been in the sovereign or ruler for the present. Amid the level headed
discussions of the constituent Get together, the annulment of the Zamindari framework was
supported by a few, similar to the main thing which was predictable with the standards of
communism whereupon Indian Freedom would have been based. In any case, it was overlooked
that the essential standards of land-holding in India was more communist than any brand of
communism which may be transported in from outside sources.

To the establishing fathers of the constitution, the foundation of property was principal. The
sacredness of private property has been perceived not just in the metropolitan law of the
considerable greater part of edified states, yet in addition by universal law both in the season of
peace and in war. Article 545 of the French common code pronounced that nobody might be

2
Adusumilli Suryanarayana v. Achuta Pothana, 23 CWN 273

6
denied of his property aside from reasons for open utility and for sufficient pay. The Spanish
code is much to a similar impact. Article 438 of the Italian code expresses that nobody should be
obliged to surrender his property aside from motivations behind open utility and subject to past
installment of just reimbursement. The Belgian constitution of 1893 accommodates such the
same. The assurance of private property is secured by a few arrangements of the constitution of
South American Republics; and Article 153 of the constitution of German organization ensures
private property. Confiscation is molded by pay, and same standards are perceived by Act 80 of
the Danish Constitution, Act 625 of the Netherlands common code and articles 104 furthermore,
105 of the constitution of Norway. The fifth revision of the Unified States constitution giving
that no individual might be denied of life, freedom or, then again property without due procedure
of law, and that private property might not be taken for open use without just pay is natural to
Indian attorney; nor would it be able to be overlooked that the Magna Carta which announced
that no free man should be denied of his free hold. Without a doubt, Article 17 of the Unified
Countries Statement of human Rights has made it an all inclusive manage "that everybody has
the privilege to claim property alone, and in relationship with others", and that "nobody should
be self-assertively denied of his property". In solid appear differently in relation to the
constitution of most of the nations in the world is the arrangement in Article of the constitution
of USSR which immovably set up the abrogation of private responsibility for instruments and
means of creation.

The creators of the Indian constitution who had before them the constitution of the USSR as
additionally a few other driving constitutions of the world, relinquished the arrangements of
USSR and guaranteed the sacredness of private property by a few articles, for example, Article
19 (1) (f) and Craftsmanship 31(1) and (2) (they were later precluded and canceled by the 44th
Amendment Act, 1978 separately).

After freedom, all the Zamindari Abrogation Laws went in close vicinity to the extent of either
proviso 4 or 6 of Aritcle 32 and in this manner it was felt that Article 31 (4) also, Article 31(6)
would secure finish resistance to the Zamindari laws from assault under the constitution. Along
these lines, Zamindari annulment and land changes laws were passed as a move towards more
populist society. By and by, when the Bihar Land Changes Act annulling Zamindari was decried,
the High Court of Patna in Kameshwar singh v. territory of Bihar, struck down the Go about as

7
contradicting the fairness statement under Article 14 of the Constitution in the matter of
remuneration. The State documented an interest to the Incomparable Court, however even before
the interest came up for hearing the first Article 31 A which restricted any test to such acts under
any arrangement of Part III.

Article 31 A conveys inside its domain Demonstrations identifying with Homes which at the
time was planned to incorporate Zamindari Home and article 31 B approved all Acts
incorporated into Calendar IX to the constitution and Timetable IX included at the time 13 Acts
all of which identified with Zamindari nullification. From that point, the first Revision Act, 1951
was tested before the Preeminent Court in Shankari Prasad v. Union of India 3, and the change
was maintained by the Preeminent Court. The interest from the choice of Patna HC was heard
from that point and it was permitted on the premise of the main revision. This choice was
accounted for in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh 4. The fourth Amendment Act additionally
amplified Workmanship 31 A by including a few conditions. It secured not only the procurement
of domains but rather additionally assuming control of administration of any property for a
constrained period in broad daylight intrigue or to secure legitimate administration of the
property . No such law was esteemed to be void on the ground of irregularity with article 14, 19
and 31.

To plan IX, seven more Acts were included with the fourth Amendment to the constitution;
Article 31 B stretching out security to them against assault in view of any key right. Presently the
locale of the courts for requirement of major rights was taken away. The constitution had made
the Preeminent Court Incomparable. The privilege to move to the court for the authorization of
the rights gave by Part III had been allowed. The constitution gave the energy of revision to
parliament to be made by a 2/3rd dominant part. Crucial rights which parliament couldn't even
by consistent vote annul or compress now could by finished borne by a 66% larger part under the
name of a correction. Such an arrangement could inoculate any demonstration from legal
obstruction or audit. At that point Article 31A and Article 31 B wound up plainly free of each
other. Article 31 A to address the difficulty of a Demonstration under Article 14, 19 and 31
alone; while Article 31 B gave an umbrella to every one of the demonstrations incorporated into
the timetable IX against all the key rights in Part III; the two articles 31 A and 31 B were
3
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458
4
Kameshwar singh v. state of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 91

8
considered to be review in operation starting from the date of the constitution itself. While
enactment in regard of domains as characterized alone were spared by Article 31 , any enactment
whatever its topic could be brought into the calendar IX, furthermore, could accordingly acquire
resistance against challenge in regard of any rights in Part III.

The authoritative sections in regard of securing and order had been disseminated between the
three records, in the first constitution. The Seventh Amendment to the constitution in 1956,
overlooked thing 33 from list I, thing 36 from Rundown II, thing 42 from list III and substituted
for 42 in the list III another passage 'Obtaining and demanding of property'.

Procurement isn't what might as well be called seizure; and it was held in Kameshwar Singh's
case that the procurement under the Indian constitution included open reason as a feature of the
substance of the section itself, however endeavors were made to demonstrate that open reason
for existing was only a necessity of the crucial appropriate in Article 31 (2) and not a
fundamental piece of the administrative power. Be that as it may, later in State of Bihar v.
Rameshwar Pratab5, the Incomparable Court went to the degree of expressing that open object
was most certainly not incorporated into the authoritative passage of procurement and that it was
capable for a council to pass a law enabling securing even with no open reason.

PURPOSE OF LAND AQUISITION

The land securing Demonstration of 1894 was made with the motivation behind encouraging the
administration's securing of secretly held land for open purposes. "Public reason", as
characterized in the demonstration, alludes to the obtaining of land for setting up instructive
organizations or plans such as lodging, wellbeing or ghetto freedom, aside from the tasks for
provincial arranging or development of locales. "Government" alludes to the focal government if
the reason for procurement is for the union and for all other purposes it alludes to the state
government. It isn't vital that all the obtaining must be started by the administration alone.
Nearby specialists, social orders enrolled under the social orders enlisted Act, 1860 and co-agent
social orders set up under the co-agent social orders Act can likewise gain the land for formative
exercises through the legislature

5
State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratab, AIR 1961 SC 1949

9
HISTORY OF LAND AQUISITION IN INDIA

Direction I of the land procurement act was first instituted by the English government in 1824.
Its application was all through the entire of the Bengal regions promptly subject to the
Administration of Fortress William. The principles enabled the administration to procure
unfaltering property at, what was regarded to be, a reasonable and sensible cost for development
of streets, trenches or other open purposes. In 1850 a portion of the arrangements of direction I
of 1824 were reached out to Calcutta through Act I of 1850, with a view to affirm the arrive titles
in Calcutta that were obtained for open purposes. Around then a railroad organize was being
created and it was felt that enactment was required for procuring land for the reasons for the
railroads. Building act XXVII of 1839 and act XX of 1852 were acquainted with hinder the
troubles relating to the development of open structures in the urban areas of Bombay and
Madras. Act VI of 1857 was the main full order, which had application to the entire of English
India. It revoked every past order identifying with procurement and its protest. Along these lines
demonstration X of 1870 came in to impact which was additionally supplanted via arrive
procurement act 1894, a totally self-contained act, with a specific end goal to cleanse a portion of
the blemishes of act X of 1870. After autonomy in 1947, the Indian government received "Land
Securing Act-1894" as a device for arrive securing. From that point forward different changes
have been made to the 1894 demonstration every now and then. Notwithstanding these revisions
the managerial methods have stayed same.

PROCEDURE OF LAND AQUISITION

For the motivations behind Land Acquisition, procedures are carried on by an officer selected by
the legislature known as Land Acquisition Collector. The procedure completed by the Land
Acquisition Collector is of an managerial nature and not of a legal or semi legal character. At the
point when an administration means to possess a land in any region, it needs to issue a notice
under Section 4 in the official periodical, daily paper and give a open notice of no less than seven
days which entitles anybody in the interest of the government to enter the land for the
motivations behind burrowing, taking level, set out limits and so on. The warning advances the
aim of the government to procure and qualifies government authorities for research and find out
climate the land is reasonable for the reason.

10
An officer or approved individual of the administration needs to delicate installment for all
essential harm, and question all debate to deficiency of sum deceive the authority. Under Section
5(a) of the land securing Act, 1894 any individual keen ashore which is told under Section 4
(who is qualified for guarantee an enthusiasm for pay) can raise a protest, in composing and face
to face. The authority in the wake of making request to such protests needs to forward the answer
to the administration whose choice in this regard would be last. Subsequent to considering such
report made by the gatherer under section 5(a) the administration may issue a revelation inside
one year of the warning under section 4 to secure land for open purposes or organization, this
statement is an obligatory prerequisite of the procurement.

After the statement under section 6, authority needs to take arrange from the suitable government
climate state or integral for the securing of arrive under section 7. The subsequent stage during
the time spent obtaining is that gatherer needs to make arrive be set apart out, measured and
suitable plan to be made precisely, unless it is as of now done. Prerequisite of this area bargains
just with estimation and does not require correct estimation. An imperative procedure that
happens under this area is outline which comprises of stamping out limits of land to be procured,
either by cutting trenches or settling marks as posts. Protest is to encourage estimation and
planning of securing plan, yet in addition let the private people comprehend what arrive is being
taken. It is to be finished by requiring body that is the administration office or organization
whichever be the situation. Deterrent under section 8 and section 4 are offense culpable with a
detainment not surpassing one year and with fine not surpassing fifty rupees. section 9 requires
the gatherer to cause an open notice at advantageous places communicating government's goal to
claim the land and requiring all people intrigued by the land to show up before him actually
what's more, make claims for pay before him. In influence this area requires gatherer to issue two
notification one to the territory of securing and other to tenants or individuals keen on grounds to
be gained, and it is a required necessity.

Following stage during the time spent procurement requires a man to convey names or data with
respect to some other individual having enthusiasm for the land to be procured and the benefits
out of the land throughout the previous 3 years. It moreover ties the individual by expecting him
to convey such data to the authority my making him subject under sections 175 and 176 of the

11
Indian Correctional Code. The protest of this progression is to empower the authority to discover
the pay by giving him an ambiguous thought.

The Last arrangement of authority's procedures include an enquiry by the gatherer into the
protests made by the intrigued people with respect to the procedures under section 8 and 9 and
influencing a honor to people to asserting pay with regards to the estimation of arrive on the date
of notice under section 4. The enquiry includes hearing gatherings who show up as for the
notification, research their cases, consider the protests and take all the data important for learn
the estimation of the land, and such an enquiry can be suspended every now and then as the
authority thinks fit and grant is to be made toward the finish of the enquiry.

Section 11 makes it mandatory with respect to the authority to shield the interests of all people
intrigued, despite the fact that they won't not have showed up before him. In granting
remuneration the Land aquisition collector should investigate gauge estimation of land, give due
contemplations to the other particular elements. Estimation of the property in the area can be
utilized as criteria. The honor ought to be made inside 2 years.

TRENDS IN CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The effectuation of the land arrangement, verbalized after autonomy, did not turn out to be
extremely smooth process. A noteworthy obstacle that came in the method for the governing
body was from the side of the sacred standards identifying with private property as created and
translated by the Incomparable Court amid the period 1951 to 1954, with extraordinary reference
to article 31. It is clear from the scrutiny of the cases at the time that there was an unmistakable
clash between the values looked to be advanced by the legal from one viewpoint and the values
held essential by the governing body and official on the other.

Different laws ordered by the state governing bodies for the annulment of Zamindari were tested
in the courts, by the interests unfavorably influenced, mostly under articles 14, 19 and 31. The
Patna HC6 pronounced the Bihar enactment to be awful under article 14 the Allahabad HC 7 then
again, proclaimed the UP law to be legitimate. The issue went to the SC. Under the watchful eye

6
Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 91
7
Suryapal Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1951 ALL 674

12
of, the court could give its assessment on the legitimacy of the enactment; parliament moved
toward becoming fretful at the postponement being caused by the case in facilitating the program
what's more, in this manner, thought of short circuiting the legal procedure by altering the
constitution in 1951. The correction came extremely close to the introduction of the constitution.
Another arrangement, Article 31 A, was added to lay down that no law accommodating the
procurement by the condition of any domain or of any rights in that, or for dousing or changing
of any such rights, would be void on the ground of conflicting with the basic rights. Another
Article 31B with Calendar IX was included giving that demonstrations specified in the timetable
would not be esteemed to be void on the ground of their taking away or condensing any key
rights. in the Ninth Calendar were recorded at the time 13 Acts ordered amid 1948 and 1950, of
these one was from Bihar, 6 from Bombay, 1 from MP, 2 from Madras, 1 from UP and 1 from
Hyderabad. These Demonstrations were to be substantial inspite of the way that a court had
pronounced any of them invalid.

COMPENSATION

Over the period since freedom, a reasonable pattern has been to confine and restrain the privilege
to remuneration for property obtained by the state.The privilege to pay has been definitely
abridged through different alterations of the constitution. By the fourth amendment in the
constitution, in Article 31 (2), the words 'procurement' and 'collecting of' were supplanted by the
words 'obligatorily obtained or ordered'. To clarify these terms, another arrangement, article 31
(2) A was included. It says that unless a law accommodates the exchange of proprietorship or
appropriate to ownership of any property to the state. It should be considered to accommodate
the mandatory acquisitioning or ordering of property, despite that it denies any individual of his
property.

The position under Art 31 (2) An in this way is hardship of property is separated into 2
classifications:

1. Obligatory securing and demanding of property by the state for a open reason which can be
influenced by law accommodating pay or, on the other hand indicating standards for it.

13
2. All cases in which the proprietorship or right of ownership of the property is not exchanged to
the state.

This sort of hardship can be influenced by law and lawmaking body has a finish caution in the
issue whether to give pay or not. Pay is payable now just in the main situation when the
proprietorship or ownership of property is exchanged to state or an enterprise claimed or
controlled by it. In the second case, the assembly may give pay if it so wants; there is no
commitment on it under the constitution. The outcome in this manner is that nobody can
guarantee the privilege to remuneration under Art 31 (2) presently in a circumstance like the one
which was displayed in the sholapur Mills case, or Saghir ahmed's case8 or subodh gopal's case.

The topic of the quantum of pay payable by the government for the property gained has been a
standout amongst the most dubious angles throughout the years. Under the typical conditions, the
remuneration must be the simply, esteem and typical measure of a simply esteem is the market
cost. It was on the premise that in, State of WB vs. Mrs Bela Banerjee9, it was held that, to be
remuneration one must pay the market an incentive as on the date of obtaining, together with pay
for being denied of property. Not long after the Bella Banerjee case, legislative ended up
noticeably uneasy as it suspected that the legal emphasis on installment of full market estimation
of the property obtained would place such a weight on its assets that it would toss out of the
apparatus the financial program which it at that point visualized. By the fourth Amendment,
Article 31 (2) was drafted as to make the topic of sufficiency of remuneration a non-justiciable
issue. Be that as it may, as the legal profession have appeared, it has not been conceivable to
keep the courts totally out of this territory.

In Vajravelu v. sp. Dy. Collector10, the SC called attention to that the altered article by holding
the word pay, must be deciphered as having acknowledged the importance of the articulation
'remuneration' and 'standards' given to them in Bella Banerjee case. Hence, a lawmaking body
really taking shape a law of securing or order ought to accommodate an 'only remuneration' of
what the proprietor was being denied of or ought to determine the standards for the motivation
behind learning the 'only equal' of what the proprietor was being denied of. The standards
recommending the "simply proportionate" can't be addressed on the ground of insufficiency. On

8
Saghir Ahmed v. state of UP, AIR 1954 SC 728
9
State of WB v. Mrs Bela Banerjee, AIR 1954 SC 170
10
Vajravelu v. sp. Dy. Collector, AIR 1964 SC 1017

14
the off chance that the standards set down are definitely not applicable to the property obtains at
the season of procurement, at that point courts can intervent and investigate the legitimacy of the
standards. This has no reference to the ampleness of the remuneration however to no pay by any
means.

The most recent legal pattern to get through the shackles forced by Article 31 (2) and attesting
that the administration can't escape by giving shadowy remuneration simply to satisfy the letter
of the law, are prominent advancements in the sacred statute of the nation. In this time of
nationalization, this will give a touch of much required security to private property. The greater
part of the cases today identify with securing of mechanical under taking or urban property. It
has never been the approach of the legislature to deny sensible remuneration in such cases.

PUBLIC PURPOSE

Article 31(2) as it remained before the fourth Amendment did not in such a significant number of
words give that no securing could be influenced alright for open to reason. The fourth
amendment of the constitution explicitly made 'open reason' a condition for necessary
procurement by the state. It might be that as it may, be noted that under the administrative
section 42 in the rundown III the lawmaking body can gain property even without an open reason
and that the main obstruction to such was article 31 (2). Later this obstruction was made to
vanish as it was canceled by the method for 44th Amendment Act, 1978.The expression 'open
reason' proposes open welfare and that thought has been changing over the span of time.
Property taken need not be made accessible to the general population. It might profit just certain
people gave they are profited in advancement of a plan of open utility.11

For the most part, the courts have taken an extremely liberal mentality on the inquiry of 'open
reason' and it will be an uncommon case to be sure where the court will hold that an object isn't
an open reason. The courts pay a decent arrangement of concession on this issue to
administrative judgments, however a definitive control still vests in the courts. An arrangement
barring the purview of the courts and settling on choice of either the official or the governing

11
Thambiran v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 Mad 756

15
body as to open reason official and indisputable on a courtroom is ultra vires Article 31 (2)12. It
is the obligation of the courts to see that no securing or demand of property is took into account
other than an open reason. S 6(3) of the land securing Act, 1894 gives that the revelation by the
state legislature of the presence of general society reason for arrive securing 'might be decisive
confirmation that the land is required for the open reason'. This area would have been ultra vires
Article 31 (2) had it not been for the way that its legitimacy is spared by Article 31 (5) (a)13.

Under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 land can be procured for:

(a) Public Purpose

(b) By an organization when it is for an open reason, and remuneration is payable entirely or
mostly out of the general population incomes.

This arrangement came being referred to in Somwanti v. State of Punjab, 14 where the applicant's
territory was ordered to empower the respondent to erect a refrigeration plant subsequently. The
applicant, the proprietor of the land, was going to begin a paper industrial facility for which he
had gotten a permit when his arrive was ordered. The administration contributed a total of Rs.
100 as it were towards the aggregate pay of about Rs. 4, 50,000 payable to the candidate of the
land. The Supreme Court held that S 6 (3) of the Land Obtaining Act unpredictably banished
legal survey of 'open reason' of an obtaining with the exception of when it was colorable. A
revelation by the express that a specific land was required for open reason, made definitive by
the Land Obtaining Act, did not encroach the constitution as it was spared and article 19 was not
pulled in as was chosen by the SC in State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji15.

The statement in the land procurement Act approving the administration to gain arrive for
organizations when remuneration is entirely payble by the organization concerned was brought
being referred to in R L Arora v. state of UP16. The SC felt that the assembly couldn't have
planned that people ought to be constrained to part with their territories for private benefit of
others, who may be proprietors of organizations, through the organizations basically in light of
the fact that the organization may create merchandise which would be valuable to general

12
Kammalama v. State of Kerala, AIR 190 ker 321
13
Brij Nath v. State of UP, AIR 1953 All 182 ; Jhandu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 343
14
Somwanti v State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151
15
State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, AIR 1955 SC 41
16
R L Arora v. state of UP, AIR 1962 SC 764

16
society. The court in this way held the specific work for the development of which the arrive is
looked to be gained must itself be valuable to general society specifically.

The propounded by the dominant part in the R L Arora case was definitely not agreeable to the
administration which needed to have wide powers to get arrive in perspective of the expanding
industrialization in the nation. Along these lines, to abrogate the understanding given by the
court, the land procurement Act was changed and another condition (a) was embedded after the
first arrangement. In R L Arora v. State of UP again the changed condition came into question. It
was contended that under the revised statement the organization for which procurement was tried
to be made ought to be occupied with any industry or work for the development of which arrive
was being obtained won't not be for an open reason and this added up to a negation of article 31
(2) and 19 (1) (f) as such securing would add up to an outlandish confinement on the sacred
appropriate to hold property.

For that reason the candidate laid accentuation on the exacting understanding of the condition.
Be that as it may, the contention was forgotten about by the greater part on the ground that
keeping in see the setting under which the assembly is revised the arrangement, strict
development was impractical. Elucidation ought to be, for example, to fit in with the goal of the
assembly i.e. the building or work which is to be developed must be such as to sub fill people in
general need of the business or work in which the organization is locked in or going to be locked
in.

The instance of somwanti uncovers yet again the inadmissible condition of law concerning
procurement. The refinement drawn by the land securing Act between obtaining for 'open reason'
and 'procurement for organization' has been to a great extent annihilated by the moment case, for
here despite the fact that the reason for existing was to build up a processing plant as a private
wander and the pay was to be paid by the organization, the court by the by held that securing was
for an open reason.

17
AIM & OBJECTIVE

In perspective of the prior discourse, the principle reason for the present work is to present the
land obtaining in India and examine the discussion behind it for such a significant number of
years. Keeping in see this point, the specialist has examined the legitimate arrangements
managing the idea of land securing furthermore, focused on the functional viewpoints covering
different legal understandings tossing a light upon the degree and utilization of the idea including
the different changes for this reason.

The specialist in the present examination has endeavored to feature the protest of the
arrangement identifying with the idea of Land Acquisition in India. The exertion has been made
to assess the viability and sufficiency of the existing laws in fighting, giving alleviation and cure;
to analyze the understanding given by the Courts. While managing such a huge theme covering
the idea of Land securing, it isn't conceivable to make the work comprehensive as the subject is
holding regularly developing significance and extension. By the by a line must be drawn some
place for finishing the show inquire about work in a compelling way. In like manner, the present
work covers the examination and social examination with respect to truthful status,
measurements and ideal models of law on the idea of Land Acquisition and laws managing
auxiliary issues which help to clarify these territories, for example, cures and method. The work
covers basic examination of the corrections to the constitution and the discussion that emerged
after the corrections and so on. The primary concentration of the investigation is to embrace the
assessment what's more, examination of the legal understanding of land securing and the cure
accommodated open reason. Along these lines this exploration work is planned to make a broad
and diagnostic investigation of energy of the court to issue Garnishee arrange. In the background
of over, an endeavor has been made to survey the acknowledged conclusions in the light of
newfound realities and judgments.

18
HYPOTHESIS

1. That the land procured by the administration is for the general public purpose.

2. That satisfactory remuneration is given to the people whose land is obtained obligatorily for
the sake of public purpose.

3. That for obtaining the land for public purpose, India has a feeble land securing act which
require alterations.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The exploration work additionally accepts its significance when the supposition of different High
Courts and Supreme Court is examined. The examination uncovers that a few certainties are
assaulting at the presence and worth of these enactments as law must keep its pace with the
target and it ought to demonstrate its value through appropriate application.

In the upshot of previously mentioned talk, it is trusted that the investigation would give
significant and thorough data with respect to importance and translation of laws. It would
likewise give adequate knowledge into the protest, execution.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The quality and estimation of research relies on the best possible and specific approach embraced
for the consummation of research work. Looking at the tremendousness of the examination point
doctrinal legitimate research system has been received.

To influence a validated investigation of the examination subject 'To arrive procurement: Legal
and protected ramifications', huge measure of think about material is required. The pertinent data
and information essential for its consummation has been accumulated from both essential and
additionally auxiliary sources accessible in the books, diaries, look into articles, sites and Acts of
the Parliament and State Legislative Assembly and legal proclamations.

Keeping in see the need of present research, different cases recorded in the Incomparable Court
and additionally in the High Courts on the issue of and the judgments in that have likewise been
19
utilized as a wellspring of data. The judgments articulated in the cases have been examined in
detail.

Chapter 2

LEGAL PROVISION

31A. sparing of laws accommodating securing of domains, and so on

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the prior arrangements of this Part, no law accommodating the
obtaining by the State of any domain or of any rights in that or for the extinguishment or
alteration of any such rights should be esteemed to be void on the ground that it is conflicting
with, or takes away or, then again condenses any of the rights gave by, any arrangements of this
Part:

Given that where such law is a law made by the Legislature of a State, the arrangements of this
article might not have any significant bearing thereto unless such law, having been held for the
thought of the President, has gotten his consent.

(2) In this article,-

(a) the articulation "bequest" should, in connection to any neighborhood, the same importance as
that articulation or its neighborhood identical has in the current law identifying with arrive
residencies in constrain here, and should likewise incorporate any jagir, inam or muafi or other
comparative concede.

(b) The articulation "rights", in connection to a bequest, might incorporate any rights vesting in
a proprietor, sub-proprietor, under-proprietor, residency holder or other middle person and any
rights or benefits in regard of land income."

31B. Approval of specific Acts and Regulations

Without bias to the consensus of the arrangements contained in article 31A, none of the Acts and
Regulations determined in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the arrangements thereof should be
esteemed to be void, or ever to have progressed toward becoming void, on the ground that such
Act, Regulation or arrangement is conflicting with, or takes away or condenses any of the rights
20
presented by, any arrangements of this Part, and despite any judgment, announcement or request
of any court or tribunal actually, each of the said Acts and Regulations might, subject to the
energy of any equipped Legislature to annul or alter it,proceed in drive.

31C. sparing of laws offering impact to certain order standards Despite anything contained in
Article 13, no law offering impact to the strategy of the State towards securing all or any of the
standards set down in Part IV might be considered to be void on the ground that it is conflicting
with, or, on the other hand takes away or compresses any of the rights gave by Article 14 or
Article 19; and no law containing a statement that it is for offering impact to such approach
might be brought being referred to in any court on the ground that it doesn't offer impact to such
strategy.

Given that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the arrangements of this Article
might not make a difference thereto unless such law, having been held for the thought of the
President, has gotten his consent.

Chapter 3

JUDICIAL TREND

After freedom, Zamindari cancelation and land changes laws were gone as a move towards more
libertarian culture, however the legislature endeavors of social designing confronted a few issues,
the land enactments were tested in the courts.

The principal case testing the land law was Kameshwar Singh v. state of Bihar17, for this
situation the Bihar arrive changes Act, 1950 was tested on the ground that the grouping of
zamindars made for the reason for giving remuneration was prejudicial and precluded measure
up to assurance from securing laws ensured to the national under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Patna High Court held this bit of enactment as violative of Article 14 as it arranged the
zamindars with the end goal of installments of remuneration in a biased way.

Because of this legal proclamation, the administration got worried that the entire agrarian
change projects would be jeopardized. To guarantee that agrarian change enactment did not keep
17
Kameshwar Singh v. state of Bihar, AIR 1954 Pat 51

21
running into overwhelming water, the lawmaking body altered the constitution by the method for
Constitution first Alteration Act, 1951 which embedded Ninth Schedule (Article 31 B).

Article 31 B was embedded by the first Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 which expresses
that without preferential to the sweeping statement of the arrangements contained in Art 31 A,
none of the demonstrations and controls determined in ninth plan nor any arrangements thereof
should be considered to be void, on the ground that such Act, control or arrangements is
conflicting with, or takes away or compresses any of the rights presented by, any arrangements
of this part, also, despite any judgment, pronouncement or request of any court or tribunal to the
contrary. Each of the said demonstrations and directions might, subject to the energy of any
equipped governing body to cancel or revise it, proceed in drive. Subsequently, Article 31 B of
the constitution of India guaranteed that any law in the ninth timetable could be tested in courts
and government can support its program of social building by improving area and agrarian laws.
In other words, laws under ninth timetable are past the domain of legal survey despite the fact
that they disregard essential rights revered under Part III of the constitution. From one
perspective, significant power was given to lawmaking body under Article 31 B and then again
the energy of legal was reduced, this is the beginning stage of tussle amongst council and legal.

The method of reasoning for Art 31 B and the ninth calendar was to secure enactment managing
property rights and no other kind of enactment. Be that as it may, by and by, Article 31 B has
been utilized to conjure assurance for some laws not worried about property rights in any case.
Article 31 B is in this manner being utilized past financial reason for which it was instituted.

Till the time when SC chose Shankari Prasad case and Sajjan Singh case, the Hon'ble Court's
view was in congruity and comparative with that of the assembly. The SC saw that there was no
risk from the improved power of the lawmaking body and the radical agrarian change was
important to control down the threat of destitution and change the framework unequal dispersion
of arrive possessions. What's more, the inclusion of different laws inside the ninth plan
additionally upheld the confidence of the court on the state art of the pioneers like Nehru and
Shastri. Be that as it may, the co-appointment between the legal and the lawmaking body doesn't
keep going for long, with the happening to Indira Gandhi government, the power allowed under
article 31 B was broadly abused by the lawmaking body to accomplish the political closures.
This incited legal to control the improved authoritative energy of the lawmaking body.

22
If there should arise an occurrence of Golaknath v. State of Punjab18, the peak court took stricter
see and held that if a revision abbreviated or took away essential rights ensured by Part III of the
constitution, the changing demonstration itself was void and ultra vires. As such, parliament has
no energy to correct or take away the essential rights cherished under Part III of the constitution.

19
In Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala Six Judges (Justice Sikri, Shelat, Hedge, Grover,
Jaganmohan Reddy and Mukherjee) held that the sum settled by law or the standards set down
there under for settling the sum must be sensible and significant to the property gained and the
sum settled might not be illusionary or a misrepresentation on control. In this view the property
gained or demanded must have a sensible association with the estimation of property gained or
ordered. Equity palekar appeared to be of the view that the law would be terrible if the sum
settled is illusionary or is generally a misrepresentation on control denying the central ideal to
get an sum particularly presented by proviso (2) of article 31. Equity Chandrachud was more
particular to call attention to the court's locale to scrutinize a law giving mandatory securing if
the sum settled there under is illusonary, or if the standards expressed in that were completely
superfluous for obsession of the sum, or if the energy of obligatory obtaining or order is
practiced for a guarantee reason, or in the event that it was in the idea of a misrepresentation on
the constitution. Then again, Justice Ray and Justice Dwivedi held that sum settled or the
standards so determined are past the pale of legal survey. Equity Mathew said that the sum
settled or the standards determined are the issues inside the supreme circumspection of a
lawmaking body, however left open the inquiry whether a law settling a sum which is illusionary
or which is an extortion on the constitution can be struck around the court. Equity Khanna did
not express any sentiment on the development of the revised Article 31 (2) for whatever may be
the development of the word sum, the revision is legitimate. Equity Beg additionally concurred
with the view communicated by Justice Dwivedi, Ray and Mathew.

In this way, most of the judges, as a result, held that the sum settled by the law can be addressed
in a court if the sum settled is illusionary or if the standards determined are immaterial or in
misrepresentation of energy. In any case, the installment of simply fair or reward at the market
estimation of the property gained or ordered seems to have been relinquished. But Justice

18
Golaknath v. state of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
19
Keshvanand Bharti v. state of kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225

23
Palekar, all concurred that a law would be invalid if the standards determined are entirely
superfluous to the property procured or demanded.

In Bhim Singh v. Union of India20, when the inquiry came up whether the measure of Rs 2
Lakhs settled as far as possible on the quantum payable under S 11 of the Urban land (Ceiling
and direction), Act, 1976 in regard of overabundance empty land gained under the Act is
illusionary or confiscatory, Justice Tulzapukar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge, was of the
view that the sum payable isn't illusionary and the arrangement isn't confiscatory. In the
supposition of the lion's share, the 25th amendment has set the matter of sufficiency of pay past
the pale of discussion and made it non-justiciable unless the sum is illusionary or confiscatory.
The standards indicated by law for assurance of pay after Article 31 (2) was changed by 44th
Amendment Act are likewise past the pale of test in an official courtroom on the off chance that
they are important to the assurance of remuneration for properties obtained necessarily, and if the
standards are suitable in deciding the estimation of the class of properties tried to be procured.

In Waman Rao v. Union of India21, the Hon'ble SC held that the revision to the constitution
which was made after 24 April, 1973, and by which the ninth Schedule to the constitution was
revised now and again by expansion of different Acts and directions are legitimate and sacred.
The revisions of ninth timetable after 24th April, 1973 are interested in challenge on the ground
that they are past the constituent energy of the parliament since they harm the fundamental
structure of the constitution. As it were, the revisions made to Acts which are as of now set in the
ninth plan are not consequently inoculated from the lawful tested even after their incorporation in
the ninth timetable, the insurance of Article 31 B is as it were to those demonstrations which are
incorporated before 24th April, 1973.

In the point of interest judgment of I R Cohelo (dead) by LRs. V. territory of Tamil Nadu and
Ors22, the Supreme court held that any law set under the constitution's Ninth Schedule after the
Judgment of Keshvanand Bharti's judgment, giving insusceptibility from lawful difficulties are
liable to investigation of courts on the off chance that they disregarded principal rights.

20
Bhim Singh v. Union of India, 1981 1 SCC 166
21
Waman Rao v Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271
22
I R Cohelo (dead) by LRs. V. state of Tamil Nadu & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 861

24
The SC has reffered to the obvious irregularities on account of Wamon Rao. The court called
attention to that when certain demonstrations had been held to be illegal, they were incorporated
into the ninth calendar. Along these lines, the SC has now reffered the accompanying two
inquiries for the choice of the nine judges-

1. Regardless of whether a demonstration which abuses one of the parts of the basic rights can be
incorporated into the ninth timetable?

2. Regardless of whether it is just a protected corrections revising the ninth plan that harms the
essential structure of the constitution that can be struck down?

In a consistent decision, a nine-part constitution Bench headed by chief Justice Y K Sabharwal

rejected the administration's claim that certain laws, regardless of the possibility that they
encroach the key privileges of natives, can't be subjected to legal audit, if the enactments were
put under the Ninth plan. The judgment, which came a day after the Apex court decided that
parliament's choices were liable to legal audit, expect noteworthiness in the wake of laws.

Chapter 4

CONCLUSION

The improvements around property relations in India, and the activity what's more,
communication which have been created between the authoritative and legal process thus, it
might be viewed as framing an exceptionally captivating part in the Indian sacred improvement.

The three changes have dependably remained a subject of contention. It is hard to state that these
were totally unjustified and baseless. It would not have been workable for the administration to
execute the program of land changes had Art 31 stayed as it initially remained under the
constitution in 1950. Be that as it may, notwithstanding tolerating the requirement for a few
alterations in article 31, one could at present contend that the changes went as well far. Article 31
B with Schedule IX has however minimal avocation, for the state acts have been made resistant
from the judicial audit with no basic examination of standards and strategies fundamental them.
The system of established revision ought to be to set down wide standards and strategies
fundamental them. The procedure of established change ought to be to set down standards and
25
afterward leave the courts free to work out their suggestions. On this view, while the requirement
for article 31 A might be acknowledged, craftsmanship 31 B and IX Schedule can't be
legitimized.

A substantial number of land procurement laws have been sanctioned by the different state
assemblies. In each state, many such laws have been ordered approving the state to get arrive for
different purposes. These laws vary in method and the size of remuneration to be given for arrive
gained. It would render a yeoman benefit if all these different laws are dissected, and some sound
and uniform standards created on such matters as strategy and remuneration, which may be
embraced consistently by the states in all cases. It would stay away from a ton of disarray and
case.

The Land Acquisition act is frail and ineffectual and the method taken after is lumbering and
exorbitant, regularly bringing about unreasonable postponement in arrive obtaining The
assurance of open reason ought to be matter of official carefulness and ought not be contestable
at law It has likewise been contended that the property valuation strategies are imperfect and that
the land proprietors get the opportunity to peg the esteem higher than the genuine esteem, in
view of 'potential esteem' and 'opportunity esteem' of their property; bringing about, what is
guaranteed as, an overwhelming strain on open accounts and confinements on the size of
improvement and redevelopment ventures.

The law of Land Acquisition imperils private enthusiasm for open intrigue and thus it denies an
individual his entitlement to property. It supersedes the privilege of a man to claim a property, so
the law by and large ought to be entirely translated. The strict development of the Law of Land
Acquisition has been stressed by the court throughout the previous 60 years as it doesn't hold the
individual whose property is being taken and state at standard. The proprietor of the property has
no dealing power with the state in such conditions nor does he have a say in pay; so its
inescapable in light of a legitimate concern for value that the law ought to be entirely translated
and the system which gives for different balanced governance ought to by entirely agreed to.
necessary securing can be viable just as per Acquisition since it is an advance into resident's
entitlement to property. On this issue the set up law is that if from the reason for which the land
is gained, it is obvious on its substance that the reason for existing isn't an open reason and there
can be no two contentions to understand it generally, implies the demonstration of the

26
government is ultra vires so for this situation general society reason for existing is legitimate i.e.
courts can investigate the issue. However, when the reason specified can be translated either
methods for being an open reason or not, it isn't legitimate.

LOOPHOLES IN LAND ACQUISITION ACT

The Land Acquisition Act in India has constantly focused on different reactions. One of the
significant escape clauses in the Land Acquisition Act is that the articulation "open design" is no
place characterized in the Act and in India the courts don't have the ability to choose whether the
reason behind a specific procurement was an open reason. The court can just direct the gatherer
to hear the protests of a man whose land has been procured, be that as it may, the Collector may
not generally tune in to the protests raised by the lawful proprietor of the land.

The second escape clause is in the computation of remuneration on the premise of market
esteem which denies the landowner, as well as conceals the different socio-social measurements
of land possession in an agrarian culture. Land does not just have a market cost at the season of
procurement, however it too serves different social, political and mental capacities to its
proprietor. The responsibility for little real estate parcel can engage a landless family and
increment the status and glory of that family in the nearby milieu. A bit of arrive underpins a
family for various ages, not just its present Individuals at the season of procurement. However,
these critical measurements of land what's more, its proprietorship in a rural society are not
considered for count of its esteem while offering pay to a land washout. The Land Acquisition
Act just manages pay and not restoration of venture influenced people whose grounds have been
procured. The obligation of the state towards the influenced people closes with the installment of
remuneration.

The Act considers the installment of remuneration to people who have lawful possession rights
over land. This implies under this Act no remuneration is payable to landless workers, woodland
arrive clients and backwoods create gatherers, craftsmans and moving slope cultivators since
they don't have any legitimate directly finished land, in spite of the fact that these gatherings of
individuals are moreover influenced when rural and woodland lands are procured for
improvement ventures. In West Bengal, the state Government needed to make a revision in the

27
Land Acquisition Act (it was done in 1963) keeping in mind the end goal to give pay to tenant
farmers (bargadars), who additionally endured loss of work as a result of procurement of
agrarian land.

The Land Acquisition Act just perceives singular property rights, be that as it may, not group
rights over land. As an outcome, the usefructory privileges of the tribal and non-tribal groups
over basic land don't discover wherever in this law. So when town regular grounds are obtained,
no remuneration in any shape is given to the town groups who infer different sorts of advantages
from these terrains. The Land Acquisition Act does not have any extension for this sort of pay
for loss of normal pool assets (CPR). Strikingly, in the tremendous country regions of India,
secretly claimed horticultural terrains are additionally utilized as regular brushing lands by the
villagers in the post-collect season. The Land Acquisition Act has no arrangement to repay the
villagers who may not be the proprietors of a specific bit of horticultural land yet appreciated
usefructory privileges of cows brushing on this land after the collect of the harvests.

28
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

1. Sharma G S (1967). Property Relations in Independent India:

Constitutional and Legal Implications, Bombay: N M Tripathi Pvt. Ltd.

2. Shukla V N (2001). Constitution of India, Lucknow: Eastern Book

Company

3. Datar Arvind (2007). Commentary on the Constitution of India,

Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co.

4. Pandey J N (2008). Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad: Central law

Agency

5. Jain M P (2006). Indian Constitutional law, Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co.

6. Bentham (1904). Theory of Legislation

7. Sinha R. Law of Landlord and Tenant

Journals:

1. Nambyar M.K. (1967). Constitutional Provisions and Social Justice,

The Journal of Indian law Institute. Vol-I, PP 93-106

2. Tewari R.B. (1967). Property Relations: The constitutional Provisions

and prospects, The Journal of Indian law Institute. Vol-I, PP 44-62

3. Rao Ramchandra (1967). Public Purpose and Compulsory Acquisition

of property, The Journal of Indian law Institute. Vol-I, PP 107-114

4. Sinha D.N. (1967). Constitutional Provisions and ownership of land,

The Journal of Indian law Institute. Vol-I, PP 114-130

29
5. Guha, Abhijeet, Missing the Wood for the Trees - A paper on land

acquisition, past and present.

6. lavayna, Chandan, Process of land Acquisition. legal service India 15

August 2008 <http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/>

7. Sharma G S. (1967). Property Relations: The Constitutional vision,

The Journal of Indian law Institute. Vol-I, PP 27-35

8. Chari Thiruvenkata (1967). Problems of urbanization, The Journal of

Indian law Institute. Vol-I, PP 166-175

9. Jain M P (1967). Trends and Prospect, The Journal of Indian law

Institute. Vol-I, PP 288-310

10. Thakker K A (2009). Judicial Review of the 9th Schedule: with special

reference to I R Cohelo case, Gujarat Law reporter. Vol-III, September-

October, PP 131-137

Reports:

1. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX

Web references:

1. http://www.manupatra.com

2. http://www.indlaw.com

3. http://www.legalserviceindia.com

4. http://sanhati.com

Case laws:

1. Adusumilli Suryanarayana v. Achuta Pothana, 23 CWN 273

2. Vyakunta Bapuji v. Government of Bombay, (1875) Bom. H.C. Rep 35

30
3. Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 91

4. Suryapal Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1951 ALL 674

5. State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, AIR 1955 SC 41

6. R L Arora v. state of UP, AIR 1962 SC 764

7. R L Arora v. state of UP, AIR 1964 SC 1230

8. Thambiran v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 Mad 756

9. Kammalama v. State of Kerala, AIR 190 ker 321

10. Brij Nath v. State of UP, AIR 1953 All 182 ; Jhandu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 343

11. Somwanti v State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151

12. State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratab, AIR 1961 SC 1949

13. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458

14. State of Bihar v. kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252

15. Golaknath v. state of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643

16. I R Cohelo (dead) by LRs. V. state of Tamil Nadu & Ors, AIR 2007 SC 861

17. Bhim Singh v. Union of India, 1981 1 SCC 166

18. Keshvanand Bharti v. state of kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225

19. Saghir Ahmed v. state of UP, AIR 1954 SC 728

20. State of WB v. Mrs Bela Banerjee, AIR 1954 SC 170

21. Vajravelu v. sp. Dy. Collector, AIR 1964 SC 1017

31
 Plagiarism Checker X Originality
Report
Similarity Found: 26%

Date: Friday, November 11, 2017

Statistics: 2621 words Plagiarized / 10077 Total words
Remarks: Medium Plagiarism Detected - Your Document needs Selective
Improvement.

32