|Case||N.B. JEEJEEBHOY V. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR THANE, AIR 1965 SC 1096|
|Court||Before the Supreme Court of India|
|Bench||K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal , S.M. Sikri, JJ
|Author of the judgement||Justice K. Subba Rao|
|Decided On||5th October, 1964|
|Advocate for the appellant||J. C. Bhat, and R. P. Bhat|
|Advocate for the respondent||C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and B. R. G. K. Achar|
The present judgement is important in the area of Administrative Law because Justice Gajendragadkar recused himself from the bench because he was a member of the cooperative society which was a party in this case. After that, a new bench was constituted which gave this judgement. This judgement deals with an important principle of Natural Justice- The rule against bias. Natural Justice has been defined by legal scholars as “a great humanizing principle intended to invest law with fairness, to secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice.” The present case attempts to answer questions as to what qualifies as bias, and whether actual partiality or actual bias needs to be proven. In its attempt the bench deals with various precedents and established laws.
|Author of the Brief||Malhar Desai|
|Keywords||Administrative Law, Natural Justice, Principle of Bias, Doctrine of Absolute Necessity.|
Brief Facts and Procedural History:
- The facts of the present case are that the land of the Appellants was acquired via a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- The compensation which had to be paid was awarded by the District Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act,1948.
- The High Court on Appeal held that while the provisions of the Act violated Article 14, it was saved by Article 31-A, and that under Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 which governed the Amending Act, the compensation need not be equal to the value the owner has been deprived of.
- Appeals were preferred, which led to this Judgment.
Issues before the Supreme Court:
- Whether the Amending Act was void on the ground that it did not comply with the provisions of s. 299 of the Government of India Act.
- Whether the Amending Act is saved by Article 31 (5) (a) of the Constitution.
- Whether the Amending Act is saved by Article 31-A of the Constitution.
Arguments of the appellants:
- The Amending Act being a pre-Constitution Act, was governed by s. 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and as it did not provide for payment of compensation for property acquired in the sense the said expression was interpreted by this Court, the said Act was void.
- The Act infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution
- It was not saved under Art. 31-A of the Constitution, as, though the land acquired was an “estate” within the meaning of the said provision, the acquisition had no concern with agrarian reforms or even with the regulation of village economy as laid down by the decisions of this Court in N.B. Jeejebhoy v. Assistant Collector, Thana (AIR 1965 SC 1096).
Arguments of the respondent:
- The said Act was covered by Art. 31-A of the Constitution and, therefore, its validity could not be questioned on the ground that it contravened either Art. 14 or Art. 31 of the Constitution.
- As Arguendo: The Amending Act was saved by Art. 31(5)(a) of the Constitution and, therefore, the question of the adequacy of the compensation could not be questioned in court.
- The Doctrine of Classification would protect the act.