Constitution of India, Art. 31-A.-Whether after amendment applied only to acquisition of "estates" for agrarian reform.-Article 31 (2)-Whether after amendment compensation required to be "Just equivalent"- Whether a law not providing for just equivalent" amounted to fraud on power Whether issue justiciable-Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961-Whether violative of Art. 31 (2) or of Art. 14.

The petitioners' lands were notified for acquisition for the purpose of housing schemes and proceedings in respect of compensation payable to them in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition ( Madras Amendment) Act, 1961. were pending. The constitutional validity of this Act was challenged by them on the ground that it infringed Arts. 14, 19 and 31 (2) of the Constitution.

It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the Amending Act was protected by Art. 31-A and therefore its validity could not be questioned on the ground that it was hit by Arts. 14. 19 and 31; that after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, the expression "compensation" carried a meaning different from that given to it in Mrs. Bela Banerjee's case; and that after the said amendment the adequacy of compensation for land acquired ceased to be justiciable.