Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
DALCHAND & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DELHI IMROVEMENT TRUST (NOW DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORTTY) NEW
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
24/03/1966
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
WANCHOO, K.N.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION:
1967 AIR 87 1966 SCR (2) 27
CITATOR INFO :
D 1968 SC1425 (18)
ACT:
United Provinces Town Improvement Act (8 of 1908), ss.
23(a), 24 (h) and 32-Scheme of Town expansion by Improvement
Trust Supplementary scheme to fulfil requirements of company
under the Original Scheme-Validity-If Act authorised
compulsory acquisition of land-Procedure under Part VII Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 if had to be followed.
HEADNOTE:
The Delhi Improvement Trust (set up under the U.P. Town
Improvement Act (8 of 1908) extended to the territory of
Delhi) prepared and notified under the Act an industrial
development scheme intended to secure the growth of an
industrial area so as to induce a flow of population away
from the crowded parts of Delhi. Land in the area was to be
developed by the Trust and a part of the land was to be
allotted to industrial concerns for construction of
industrial building and the rest for construction of
residential and other buildings. Under the scheme one
particular company was to be allotted a certain acreage of
land but the land covered by the scheme was found inadequate
for this purpose. A supplementary scheme was therefore
notified modifying the original scheme and providing for the
acquisition of an additional area of land, to be sold to the
company. Under the terms of sale this additional area was
to be developed by the Company. The appellants, whose lands
were sought to be compulsorily acquired under the
supplementary scheme, sued the Trust challenging the
legality of the scheme and the award made in the acquisition
proceedings. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit but on
appeal the High Court reversed this decision.
In the appeal to this Court three questions fell for
determination: (i) whether acquisition of I-and of the
appellants under the supplementary scheme was for the
purposes of the Act; (ii) whether for executing the
supplementary scheme the Trust had power to compulsorily
acquire land; and (iii) whether land of the appellants could
be acquired only in the manner provided by Part VII of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
HELD:The High Court was right in refusing to decree the
suit.
(i)The original and supplementary schemes had to be regarded
as one composite scheme conceived in the interests of
industrial development. The original scheme was primarily a
town expansion scheme within the meaning of the Act; and the
supplementary scheme was framed for the further progress of
and to effectuate the purpose of the original scheme
Acquisition of land for industrial development and making
provision for the residence of employees in the industries
would clearly fall within the terms of s.24(h), read with s.
32.
The provisions of the Act would not justify acquisition of
land with a view to handing it over to an industrial concern
for private gain. But this was riot the position in the
present case, as a scheme
28
which contemplated acquisition of land for effectuating the
object of the original scheme was not a device to acquire
land for the private gain of an industrialist. The general
supervision and control over the execution of the
supplementary scheme, as over the original scheme, was
retained by the Trust and the Compnay was to develop the
land subject to control under the Town Planning Scheme. [35
C, F, G, HI
(ii)Power to acquire land compulsorily was conferred by s.23
(a) which in terms authorised acquisition by purchase,
exchange or otherwise of any property necessary or affected
by the execution of the scheme, and this provision could be
incorporated in any of the improvement schemes of the type
mentioned in s.24. The power could also be exercised under
ss.32, 55 and 56. Under the provisions relating to other
classes of schemes express provision with regard to
acquisition of land was made and such express provision was
absent in s.32 dealing with town expansion schemes. But
that would not justify the inference that the provisions of
s.23(a) relating to acquisition of land necessary for or
affected by the execution of the scheme were not available
in sanctioning a town expansion scheme. Were it otherwise,
s.23(a) would not have application to any scheme at all. [36
B-E]
(iii)The provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act
1894, did not have to be followed, for, in this case, land
was not to be acquired for the company; it was to be
acquired for carrying out an industrial development scheme.
Mere inclusion of a provision for sale of land comprised in
the scheme did not vitiate the scheme.
If the Act was valid and could be resorted to for
compulsorily acquiring land, the awards made under the Act
were not open to challenge on the ground that if another
scheme of acquisition had been resorted to, more
compensation could have been paid to the appellants. [36 F,
G; 37 B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1107 of 1963.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 8, 1959
of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi, in Civil
Regular Appeal No. 17-D of 1954.
B, D. fain, for the appellants.
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. By a notification issued on March 2, 1937 under s.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 13 of 1912, the Government of India
extended, subject to certain modifications, the United
Provinces Town Improvement Act, 8 of 1919, to the territory
of Delhi, and thereafter set up an Improvement Trust under
the Act for that territory. The Trust prepared an
industrial development scheme with the object of relieving
congestion by inducing a flow of population from the crowded
parts of the town of Delhi to certain other areas. Under
the scheme land in those areas was to be developed and after
construction of roads, storm water drains, street-lighting.
29
refuse and sewage disposal works, schools, parks,
playgrounds, dispensaries, welfare centres and police-
station a part of the land was to be allotted to industrial
concerns for construction of industrial buildings and the
rest for construction of residential and other buildings.
The scheme was sanctioned under s. 42 of the Act by the
government of India, and was duly promulgated. Thereafter
the Trust resolved in June 1942 to make a supplementary
scheme as the land covered by the original scheme was
inadequate. It appeared that the Trust had agreed to
provide under the original scheme a block of land comprising
268 acres of land to the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co.
Ltd.-hereinafter called ’the Company’ -on certain terms and
conditions embodied in a resolution dated January 9, 1942,
but the Trust was able to offer to the Company under the
lay-out of the original scheme only 174.84 acres. It was
before proposed by the Trust to modify the scheme as
sanctioned and to provide for acquisition of an additional
area of 103.16 cres under a supplementary scheme.
On July,18, 1942 notice under S. 36 of the Act was published
in respect of the supplementary scheme for development of
the industrial area, specifying the boundaries of the land
in which the scheme was to be worked and inviting objections
to the scheme, within one month from the date of
publication. No objections were, it appears raised to the
proposed supplementary scheme, and it was finally approved
by resolution dated July 31, 1944, and was notified under S.
42 of the Act on June 28, 1946. Land acquisition
proceedings were then commenced under s. 58 of the Act and
awards were made assessing compensation to be paid to the
owners of the land for compulsory acquisition. In the
scheme so notified was included an area of 13 bighas of land
belonging to the appellants and that land was acquired.
On May 3, 1949 the appellants sued the Delhi Improvement
Trust for a declaration that the awards were "wrong and
illegal and did not result in acquisition of the suit
property" and for an order restraining the Trust from taking
possession of their lands under the awards and from
interfering in any way with their enjoyment of the lands.
The appellants in support of their claim contended that the
notification extending the United Provinces twon Improvement
Act, 8 of 1919, was invalid, that the Improvement Trust was
not lawfully constituted, that the industrial development
schemes were invalid, that the Trust had no power to acquire
lands for the purposes mentioned in the scheme, and that the
resolutions and proceedings of the Trust being procedurally
defective the scheme "was illegal". The appellants also
contended that the scheme was framed at the instance of and
solely for the benefit of the Company, since the land was
intended to be given after acquisition to that Company or to
other industrialists for
30
development by them for their own benefit. The Subordinate
Judge, Delhi, held that the Act was properly extended to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
Delhi territory. that the scheme was valid and the Trust had
power to acquire the land, but in the view of the
Subordinate Judge there was "nothing on the record to show
that the area in suit" was "necessary for or" was "affected
by the execution of this scheme," and that "the Act does not
authorise compulsory acquisition for purposes of recoupment
or for allotment to some company". The Subordinate Judge
accordingly decreed the suit as claimed by the appellants.
In appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge with appellate
powers the decree passed by the Trial Court was affirmed.
In second appeal to the High Court of Punjab, Falshaw, J.,
reversed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court. In
the view of the learned Judge, since the original industrial
area scheme framed in 1940, was a valid scheme, acquisition
of an additional area of land for meeting the requirements
of that scheme was a legitimate extension thereof and merely
because the Trust had resolved to acquire land for sale to
the Company after development, the scheme was not open to
challenge. He also held that the acquisition not being for
the Company, Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had no
application and that the supplementary scheme was not
invalid merely because the plan for development was to be
worked out not by the Trust directly but by the Company
under the general supervision and control of the Trust, and
in accordance with the town planning scheme framed under S.
192 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The decree passed by
Falshaw, J., was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High
Court. With certificate granted by the High Court, this
appeal has been preferred.
The arguments in this case have ranged over a wide field,
but in the main three questions of law fall to be decided:
(1) Whether acquisition of land of the appellants under the
supplementary scheme was for the purposes of the Act; (2)
whether for executing the supplementary scheme the Trust had
power to compulsorily acquire land; and (3) whether land of
the appellants could be acquired only in the manner provided
by the Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Act as the preamble discloses was enacted with a view to
make provision for the improvement and expansion of towns
Chapter 11 of the Act deals with the constitution of
Improvement Trusts for carrying out the provisions of the
Act. Chapter III deals with the proceedings of the Trust
and Committees thereof. Chapter TV deals with different
forms of improvement schemes. Section 2’ describes in cls.
(a) to (p) matters which may be provided for in an
improvement scheme. Clauses (a) & (g) thereof read as
follows:
"(a) The acquisition by purchase, exchange, or
otherwise any property necessary for or
affected by the execution of the scheme."
31
"(g) The sale, letting, or exchange of any
property comprised in the scheme."
By s. 24 it is provided that an improvement scheme shall be
one of the following types, or may combine any two or more
of such types, or of any special features of, that is to
say,-
(a) a general improvement scheme;
(b) a re-building scheme;
(c) a re-housing scheme-,
(d) a street scheme;
(e) a deferred street scheme;
(f) a development scheme-,
(g) a housing accommodation scheme-, and
(h) a town expansion scheme.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
Sections 25 to 32 set out the conditions in which the
different classes of schemes may be framed and provisions
which may be made in those schemes. Provisions relating to
development schemes in s. 30 and town expansion schemes in
s. 32 alone are material. By s. 30 cls. (1) & (2) it is
provided-.
"(1) In regard to any area to which this Act
is extended, the Trust may, from time to time,
prepare a scheme of proposed public streets
with plans showing the direction of such
streets, the streets alignment and building
line on each side of them, their intended
width and such other details as may appear
desirable.
(2) When any such scheme has been notified
under section 42 the street to which it refers
shall be deemed to be a projected public
street."
Restrictions are then placed upon the right of occupants of
the buildings to erect, re-erect, add to or alter any
building or wan, and provision is made for other related
matters. Section 32 reads:
"(1) Whenever the Trust is of opinion that it
is expedient and for the public advantage to
control and provide for the future expansion
of a municipality in any area to which this
Act is extended, the Trust may frame, a scheme
(to be called a "town expansion scheme").
(2) Such scheme shall show the method in
which it is proposed to lay out the area to be
developed and the purposes for which
particular areas are to be utilized.
(3) For the purposes of a town expansion
scheme the provisions of clause (a) of sub-
section (2) of section 40 shall not be
applicable, but the Trust shall be required to
supply such details as the State Government
may consider necessary.
(4) When any such scheme has been notified
under section 42, if any person desires to
erect, re-erect, add to or alter any building
or wall within the area comprised in the said
scheme, he shall apply to the Trust for
permission to do so.
32
(5) If the Trust refuses to grant permission
to any person to erect, re-erect, add to or
alter any building or wall on his land in the
area aforesaid, and if it does not proceed to
acquire such land within one year from the
date of such refusal, it shall pay reasonable
compensation to such person for any damage
sustained by him in consequence of such
refusal."
Section 33 deals with the procedure to be followed in
framing improvement schemes. Section 36, inter alia, deals
with the preparation, publication and transmission of
notices about the improvement schemes. Section 38 deals
with notice of proposed acquisition of land. Section 40
authorises the abandonment of and submission of the schemes
for sanction to the State Government with such modifications
as the Trust may consider necessary after considering the
objections or representations which may be received.
Section 41 authorises the State Government to sanction with
or without modification, or refuse to sanction, or return
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
for reconsideration, ,any improvement scheme submitted to it
under s. 40. Section 42 provides:
"(1) Whenever the State Government sanctions
an improvement scheme it shall announce the
fact by notification, and except in the case
of a deferred street scheme, development
scheme, or town expansion scheme, the Trust
shall forthwith proceed to execute the same.
(2) The publication of a notification under
sub-section (1) in respect of any scheme shall
be conclusive evidence that the scheme has
been duly framed and sanctioned."
Section 43 provides for alteration in an improvement scheme
before it had been carried into execution, subject to
certain conditions specified therein. Chapter V deals with
the powers and duties of the Trust in respect of a scheme
which has been sanctioned. Section 55 authorises the Trust
to enter into an agreement with any person for the purchase,
lease or exchange by the Trust of any land which the Trust
is authorised to acquire or any interest in such land
Section 56 provides that the Trust may, with the previous
sanction of the State Government, acquire land under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as modified by
the provisions of the Act for carrying out any of the
purposes of the Act. Section 58 provides that for the
purpose of acquiring land under the Land Acquisition Act for
the Trust, the Tribunal constituted under S. 57 shall be
deemed to be the Court, and the President of the Tribunal
shall be deemed to be the Judge under the said Act subject
to further modifications indicated in the Schedule, and that
the award of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be the award of
a Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and shall be
final. At this stage, the material provisions of the
Schedule referred to in s. 58 may be referred to. The
Schedule amends the Land Aoquisition Act in certain
respects. The expression "local authority" in s. 3(ee) of
the Land Acquisition Act includes a Trust constituted
33
under the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919. By
cl. 2(1) the first publication of the notice of an
improvement scheme under s. 36 of the Act is substituted for
and has the same effect as publication in the Official
Gazette and in the locality, of a notification under sub-
section (1) of s. 4 of the Act, except where a declaration
under s. 4 or s. 6 of the Act had previously been made and
was still in force. By sub-cl. (2) of cl. 2, inter alia,
publication of a notification under s. 42 is substituted for
and has the same effect as a declaration by the State
Government under s. 6 of the Act, unless a declaration under
the last mentioned section had previously been made and was
still in force. By cl. 6, s. 17-A is incorporated in the
Land Acquisition Act, and it reads:
"In every case referred to in section 16 or
section 17, the Collector shall, upon payment
of the cost of acquisition, make over charge
of the land to the Trust; and the land shall
thereupon vest in the Trust, subject to the
liability of the Trust to pay any further
costs which may be incurred on account of its
acquisition."
Section 65 of the Act deals with disposal of
land. It provides:
Subject to any rules made by the State
Government under section 72 of this Act, the
Trust may retain, or may let on hire, lease,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of, any
land vested in or acquired by it under this
Act."
Broadly stated the scheme of the Act is that with a view to
make improvements in towns the Trust may make certain order
after framing an appropriate scheme of a type or containing
special features of different types of schemes mentioned in
s. 24. The scheme so framed may make provisions for matters
which are prescribed by s. 23 and such other matters as are
provided for specially in the appropriate sections dealing
with the different classes of schemes.
The relevant resolutions adopted by the Trust for framing
the original and supplementary schemes may be briefly
noticed. On June 30, 1942 it was resolved by the Trust to
acquire an additional area of 103.16 acres to be sold to the
Company. The resolution reads as follows:
"A reference is invited to Board’s resolution
No. 78 of the 29th March, 1940 relating to the
Trust’s Industrial Area Scheme. The scheme as
approved by the Board and sanctioned by the
Chief Commissioner covers an area of about
479.81 acres....... and provides for the
acquisition and development of 271.21 acres of
land....... at a cost not exceeding Rs. 6.84
lakhs, and- the acquisition and development of
the remaining 208.6 acres provided any one or
more reputable industrialists deposit with or
guarantee to the Trust the cost of acquiring
and developing this additional area. As
decided by the Board in their Resolution Nos.
108 and 109
34
of the 16th May, 194.1 the scheme as regards
block ’I’ in sub. scheme ’A’ has been held in
abeyance and land in block 11 has been
acquired and is under development for factory
sites.
The Board have now agreed to sell 268 acres of
land in the Industrial Area to the Delhi Cloth
and General Mills Co. Ltd., on the terms and
conditions embodied in Resolution No. 19 of
the 9th of January, 1942 as amended by
Resolution No. 50 of the 27th March, 1942.
"The Trust can....... offer only 174.84 acres
out of the land falling within the boundaries
of the sanctioned scheme to the Company for
the present........... It is therefore
proposed to alter under section 43 of the
Trust Law, the scheme as sanctioned so as to
provide for the acquisition of this additional
area of 103.16 acres to be sold to the
Company. As under
the terms of the sale this additional area is
to be developed by the Company, the Trust will
have to incur initially expenditure only on
acquisition of this land,
Pursuant to this resolution notices were issued under s. 36
of the Act in respect of the acquisition of the area.
Thereafter a resolution was passed on July 31, 1944 and it
was stated in the introductory part of the resolution:
"The present site of the industrial area was
selected as being suitably located vis-a-vis
the city and the newly developed Trust area.
There was no other site available where such
facilities for roads and railway lines
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
existed. The sizes of the plots were fixed on
the basis of the demand of different indus-
trialists."
The scheme was then sanctioned under S. 42 of the Act.
The resolution of the Trust dated March 29, 1940, clearly
indicates that the original scheme was intended to secure
growth of an industrial area- and thereby to relieve
congestion in the over-crowded localities in the town of
Delhi. Such a scheme was primarily a town expansion scheme
within the meaning of s. 24(b) read with s. 32. In framing
such a scheme the provisions of a development scheme were
incidentally incorporated, and that the Trust, by express
enactment in s. 24 was competent to do.
It appears that neither before Falshaw, J., nor before the
High Court the validity of the original scheme of 1940 was
challenged. Counsel for the appellants contended that no
reliance was ever placed by the Trust before the Trial Court
or the First Appellate Court upon the original scheme and
the appellants had no opportunity for challenging the
validity of that scheme, but we are unable to accept that
contention. The appellants by their plaint challenged the
application of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, the constitu-
tion of the Trust and the various steps taken by the Trust
resulting
35
in the acquisition of their land. The original scheme was
tendered in evidence before the Court of First Instance. It
is true that arguments in the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court were primarily directed to canvassing the
validity of the supplementary scheme in enforcement of which
the property of the appellants was acquired. But it cannot
be said that the original scheme was not before the Court or
that its validity was not challenged. In any event counsel
for the appellants has not been able to suggest any ground
on which that scheme is open to challenge. The supple-
mentary scheme, as the resolution dated June 30, 1942
clearly indicates, was framed for the further progress of
the original scheme. The scheme was one for town expansion,
and acquisition of land for town expansion, i.e. providing
for industrial development and making provision for the
residence of employees in the industries and of others,
would clearly fall within the terms of S. 24(h) read with S.
32. It is true that in the resolution dated June 30, 1942
it is recited that the scheme was to provide for the
acquisition of "an additional area of 103.16 acres to be
sold to the Company". But from a perusal of the primary
scheme it is clear that the Company had expressed its
requirement for a large area of land under the development
scheme and the resolution dated March 29, 1940 had approved
of that requirement. It was recited in the resolution that
the Company was employing a large number of labourers and
removal of the factory to the outskirts of Delhi would
contribute in a substantial measure to relief of congestion
and also because establishment of a big concern in the
industrial area would afford great stimulus to the
development of the area. It was found after Part ’A’ of the
original scheme was carried out that the area provided for
the Company was inadequate for its requirements and the
Company requested that a larger area may be provided, and
accordingly the supplementary scheme was framed.
Resort to the provisions of the Act for acquiring land with
a view to hand it over to an industrial concern for private
gain may not fall within the terms of the Act. But in the
circumstances already set out a scheme framed which
contemplates acquisition of land for effectuating the object
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
of the original scheme is not open to challenge on the
ground that it is a device to acquire land to be disposed of
for private gain of an industrialist. The original and the
supplementary schemes must be regarded as one composite
scheme conceived in the interests of industrial development
and relief of congestion by inducing a flow- of population
from the congested areas. The object of the supplementary
scheme was to effectuate the purpose of the original scheme
and failure to frame that scheme may seriously have affected
the utility of the original scheme.
There is no warrant for the contention raised by the
appellants that the land was not to be developed by the
Trust, but was to be acquired and handed over to the
Company. It is clear from the scheme that the general
supervision and control over the execution
36
of the supplementary scheme as over the original scheme was
retained by the Trust and the Company was to develop the
land subject to control under the Town Planning Scheme.
The argument that in a town expansion scheme under s. 32
read with s. 24(h) of the Act, there is no power to acquire
land compulsorily is futile. Section 23(a) in terms
authorises acquisition by purchase, exchange, or otherwise
of any property necessary for or affected by the execution
of the scheme. That provision may be incorporated in any of
the improvement schemes of the types mentioned in s. 24.
Again Section 32 clearly implies that in a town expansion
scheme such a power would be reserved, for the Trust is
statutorily declared liable to pay compensation when
permission to alter any building or wall on the land in the
area is denied, if the Trust does not proceed to acquire
such land within one year from the date of such refusal. By
s. 55 a general power to purchase orlease by agreement of
any land which the Trust is authorised to acquire is granted
and by s. 56 power to acquire land under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, is expressly conferred. It is true
that under the provisions relating to other classes of
schemes, for instance, s. 26(2)(f), s. 28(2)(a), s. 29(3) an
express provision with regard to acquisition of land is
made, and there is no such express provision in s. 32. But
that by itself is not sufficient to justify an inference
that the provisions of s. 23(a) relating to acquisition of
land necessary for or affected by the execution of the
scheme may not be conferred in sanctioning a town expansion
scheme. If the view contended for be correct, s. 23(a) will
not have application to any scheme. We are unable to see
any reason why s. 56 which authorises the Trust to acquire
land is to be restricted only to those cases in which in the
case of a specific scheme an express provision conferring
power of acquisition apart from s. 23(a) is conferred.
Nor is there any substance in the contention that the provi-
sions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had to be
resorted to by the Trust for acquiring land which was to be
allotted to a Company after development. If the land is to
be notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act
for a Company, the requirements of Part VII of the Land
Acquisition Act must undoubtedly be complied with, and
failure to do so would render the acquisition invalid. In
this case, land was not to be acquired for the Company: it,
was to be acquired for carrying out the industrial
development and town expansion scheme of the Trust, and then
it was to be allotted for carrying out the scheme to the
Company for development. Power to include provision for
sale of land comprised in the scheme may competently be
conferred under s. 23(g) of the Act and may be exercised
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
under s. 65. Mere inclusion of a power of sale of land
acquired under a scheme does not therefore vitiate a scheme.
The argument that in passing the resolution for bringing
into force the supplementary scheme one of the Directors of
the Company had participated need not detain us. This
argument was
37
apparently not raised before the High Court, and having
regard to the terms of ss. 42 & 100 of the Act has no force.
It is true that if the land of the appellants had been
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants may
have become entitled to the statutory solatium in addition
to the market value. But if the Act is valid, and could be
resorted to for compulsorily acquiring land of the
appellants, the awards made under the Act are not open to
challenge on the ground that if another scheme of
acquisition had been resorted to, the appellants may
possibly have obtained more compensation.
The appeal must therefore fail. Having regard however to
the circumstances of the case, we think that in this case
there should be no order as to costs throughout.
Appeal dismissed.
38