Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.:— In this writ petition; the validity of section 40-B of the Hyderabad Housing Board Act, 1956, as amended by Act XV of 1962 is questioned.
2. Section 40-B reads as follows:—
“Payment of compensation:— (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Central Act X of 1894), the amount payable as compensation in respect of land acquired under this Act shall be an amount equal to twenty times the net average annual income actually derived from such land during the period of five consecutive years immediately preceding of the date of notification under section 22-A.
(2) The net average annual income referred to in sub-section (1) shall be calculated in the manner and in accordance with the principles set out in the succeeding sub-sections.
(3) The net average annual income shall be one-fifth of the gross rent actually derived by the owner from the land acquired and buildings, it any thereon, during the period of five consecutive years after deducting municipal taxes, revenue charges and cost of repairs for the said period of five years from such gross rent.
(4) The gross rent shall be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer by local enquiry and, if necessary, by obtaining certified copies of extracts from the property tax assessment books of the local authority concerned showing the rental values of such lands or buildings.
(5) Where there are trees on the land acquired the Land Acquisition Officer shall take into account the income it any actually derived by the owner from such trees during the said periods five years
(6) It the land or buildings thereon remained unoccupied or the owner has not been in receipt of any rent for the occupation of such land or buildings during the whole or say part of the said period of five years, the gross rent shall be taken to be the income which the owner would in fact have derived if the land or buildings had been leased out or given for rent during the relevant period shall be and for this purpose, the income actually derived from similar lands or buildings in the vicinity taken into account.
Explanation.— In this section, ‘building’ includes a house, outhouse, shed, hut and any other such structure, whether of masonry bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever.”
3. From this, it is clear that this provide for a quite different basis for assessing compensation to be given to the owner of the property acquired under the Housing Board Act, 1956 from that provided under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. A similar question arose for decision before the Supreme Court in Vajravelu v. Special Deputy Collector1.. In that case section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act was amended by the Madras Amendment Act XXIII of 1961 and one of the questions decided by the Supreme Court was whether the said amendment infringed Article 14 of the Constitution and hence was void. These amendments provided a different basis for valuation for property acquired under the Housing Scheme. The Supreme Court held that this amendment infringed Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence was void.
4. On principle, it is not possible to distinguish that case from the case before us. Hence we hold that section 40-B of the Hyderabad Housing Board Act (XLVI of 1956) as amended by A.P Act XV of 19???2 offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is hence void. This order will not preclude the respondents from continuing the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in accordance with Law.
5. The writ petition is therefore allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.
6. W.P allowed.