The other portion of clause (2) which has given rise to a good deal of controversy is the import of the expression “compensation” in section 299 of the Government of India Act 1935 and article 24 as originally drafted which in substance is merely a reproduction of section 299. On the one side it has been urged that the expression “compensation” by itself carries with it the significance that it must be equivalent in money value of the property or the date of the acquisition, i.e. its market value. On the other side, it has been urged that taking the clause as it is which refers to the law specifying the, principles on which and the manner in which the, compensation is to be determined, it gives a latitude to the Legislature in the matter of formulating the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined. In this context, it is necessary to note that the language employed in section 299 and that employed in article 24 is not in pari materia with the language employed in corresponding provisions in other Constitutions referring to the compulsory acquisition of property on payment of just compensation. The, expression ‘just’ which finds a place in the American and in the Australian Constitutions is omitted in section 299 and in article 24. There is also no reference to any principles and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined at all in the Australian or in the American Constitution- The principles of compensation by their very nature cannot be the same in every specie,-, of acquisition. In formulating the principles, the Legislature must necessarily have regard to the nature of the property, the, history and course of enjoyment, the large class of people affected by the legislation and so on. There is the further point that the Legislature, in Schedule- Seven, item 35 of the Concurrent List already passed by this House, is clothed with plenary power to formulate the principles and the manner of compensation.
