Somawanti v State of Punjab

Facts

• The State of Punjab acquired land belonging to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act 1894
• The landowners challenged the acquisition on the ground that the compensation offered was grossly inadequate
• The owners also questioned whether the acquisition served a genuine "public purpose"
• The State relied on the Fourth Amendment to Article 31 which provided that no law for acquisition could be challenged on the ground that compensation was inadequate

Issue

1. Whether the courts can examine the adequacy of compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings under Article 31(2), and whether the declaration of public purpose is conclusive.

Held

• The adequacy of compensation is not justiciable after the Fourth Amendment to Article 31
• Courts can only examine whether what is provided is compensation in the legal sense (i.e., not illusory)
• The legislature's determination of the principles of compensation is not open to challenge
• The declaration of "public purpose" by the government is generally conclusive, though it must not be a colourable exercise of power
• If the acquisition is mala fide or a fraud on the statute, courts retain jurisdiction to intervene

Ratio Decidendi

Under Article 31(2) as amended by the Fourth Amendment, the adequacy of compensation for compulsory acquisition is a matter for the legislature and not subject to judicial scrutiny. Courts retain jurisdiction only to determine whether what has been provided constitutes "compensation" in the legal sense and whether the acquisition genuinely serves a public purpose. The government's declaration of public purpose is generally conclusive unless it is a colourable exercise of power.