UNION OF INDIA V. CHAJJU RAM AND ORS INSC 226

UNION OF INDIA V. CHAJJU RAM AND ORS INSC 226 Background and Context The first and the foremost question arising in this case are— 'The constitutional validity of the Defence of India Act, 1971', commonly known as the Act, especially insofar as it does not provide for the payment of 'solatium' and— 'interest' on 'land acquisition' and whether this infraction is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are landowners in the Bhatinda District of Punjab. They had their lands requisitioned in 1971 for the purposes of a military cantonment. Though the respondents did disentitle the compensation so determined by the competent authority and sought arbitration under terms of Section 31 of the Act, it was allegedly not referred to arbitration. Hence, feeling strained by the compensation so determined and non-payment of solatium and interest, respondents laid the writ petitions and the High Court came forward to declare Section 31 of the Act ultra vires Article 14 and held the respondents entitled to claim solatium and interest.

Key Questions and Legal Arguments The Supreme Court examined the following three questions:

Should the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to solatium and interest apply to other acquisition acts, including the Defence of India Act?

Does the constitution validly exclude the provisions for solatium and interest in the Defence of India Act?

If the Act is upheld, should the amounts that have already been paid as solatium and interest be refunded? Judicial Precedents and Arguments Case of the Appellants According to the appellants, appearing by Attorney General Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, precedents already exist for this case in Union of India vs. Hari Krishan Khosla and Union of India vs. Dhanwanti Devi, where it was followed that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act regarding solatium and interest do not need to be read into the Defence of India Act, as the acquisition schemes under both acts are basically different in nature. It was thus emphasised by the appellants that on the principle of solatium and interest in relation to delayed payments, the Land Acquisition Act is a statute which had no applicability under the Defence of India Act.

The Respondents' Stand Their case, through Mr. O.P. Sharma, was that the non-providing of the items of solatium and interest under the Defence of India Act is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, as the principles relating to compensation ought not to be affected by the purpose of acquisition of the land, whether for defence or otherwise. It was thus submitted that the provisions for solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act should be incorporated into the Defence of India Act. They just based on the precedents, Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq vs. The State of West Bengal, and the Nagpur Improvement Trust cases.

Judicial Reasoning and Conclusion Distinguishing Acquisition Schemes The Supreme Court held that for the land to be acquired under the Defence of India Act, its purpose and requisition circumstances are completely different from the requisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Under the Defence of India Act, there is, of necessity, a requisition followed by acquisition for defence purposes in which compensation is given by the Government to the owner for loss of possession. Hence, the justification for compensation is different and the market value of the land takes into account the period for which the owner was kept out of possession.

Classification Justification The Court justified the non-inclusion of the solatium and interest provisions in the Defence of India Act on the premise that requisition and acquisition under the Act reserve a distinct nature. The compensation criteria were just and not unreasonable, given that the government itself is in possession and is utilizing the land for the requisition period. Since the owner has already been paid for being out of possession during the requisition period, his claim for solatium and interest is illogical.

Validity of Previous Decisions The Court adhered to the correctness of the judgments in Hari Krishan Khosla and Dhanwanti Devi in finding that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest could not be read into the Defence of India Act. The Court also found support in the decision in Dayal Singh afresh in a finding that substantive rights such as re-determination of compensation has to be expressly provided by the statute and cannot be inferred or implied.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the principles of classification and the tests for compensation enunciated in the aforesaid Defence of India Act are constitutionally valid and do not contravene Article 14. The decision of the High Court was accordingly overruled. However, taking into account the long interval since the payments and the trifling amounts involved, the Court directed that the sum previously paid towards solatium and interest need not be refunded. The decision, it noted, was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and wasn't to be treated as a precedent.

Summary As such, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Defence of India Act, 1971, by not providing for solatium and interest. The said Act was distinguished from the Land Acquisition Act by the special circumstances of requisition and acquisition of land for defense. What the Court points out is that such differences in the object or circumstances justify the non-providing for solatium and interest provisions and them being consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.