Read Time: 09 minutes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, while upholding that the Tamil Nadu Legislature had the legislative competence to enact the The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Law (Revival of operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 said that “it was a legitimate exercise” of the Tamil Nadu State Legislature and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment.

The order was passed by a a bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari.

The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had enacted three land laws i.e Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997, and Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare which were declared repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (RFCTLARR Act)  by the High Court in the case of The Caritas Vs Union of India.

The High Court also declared all the acquisitions made under the three Acts to be illegal with effect from September 27, 2013.

Consequently, the Tamil Nadu State Legislature enacted the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 which validated all pending acquisitions which were otherwise quashed by the High Court.

This Act was then challenged by some landowners before the Apex Court which framed the following issues and answered the same.

1.Whether the State legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2019 Act, a retrospective validating Act?

 The Court observed that the factum of power vested in the legislature over the subject matter and its competence to make a validating law is not in issue or disputed in the present case.

 

2. Whether the State legislature transgressed the limits of its legislative competence having the effect of nullifying/overruling the judgment of the High Court by enacting the 2019 Act?

The Court clarified that the 2019 Act was not inconsistent with the High Court’s order. It said that  “The 2019 Act is a conscious attempt by the State legislature to bring four material aspects of land acquisition under the three State enactments at par with the 2013 Act i.e., compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement and infrastructure facilities. No doubt, certain features of the stated law made by the Parliament have been left out, but that debate does not fall for our consideration as the vires of 1997 Act and 2001 Act are already under consideration in the batch of SLPs, as already pointed above. To say that failure to import all provisions of the law made by the Parliament in the State enactments results into non removal of defects pointed by the High Court, is nothing but a palpable misreading of the judgment of the High Court.”

 

3. Whether the 1997 Act and 2001 Act again fall foul of Article 254 on account of being repugnant to the 2013 Act, owing to the date of retrospective commencement of the 2019 Act?

The Court answering in the negative said

“The underlying purpose of retrospectivity, therefore, is to cure including validate certain transactions of the past by making a law in the present and and not to compete with the laws existing in the past at that point of time. In this case, the objective was to save and validate past acquisitions under the three State enactments, which were valid until the commencement of the 2013 Act but stood quashed due to the High Court decision. This was also for altering the basis of the law in existence at that point of time and providing for benefits at par with the 2013 Act, so far as it was fit in the wisdom of the State legislature. No doubt, it may appear anomalous to operationalise the 2019 Act from 26.09.2013, a day prior to the making of the 2013 Act, but it does not make any impact on the validity thereof or its substance. The date has been chosen by the State legislature only by way of abundant caution and, in our view, rightly. It is obviously relevant to overcome the repugnancy corresponding to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Adopting any other interpretation would not only be unwarranted as per the constitutional scheme but would also strike at the very purpose of a retrospective reviving and validating enactment. More so, it would open a pandora's box of unforeseen conflicts”, said the Court.

The Court however has left open for consideration whether the three laws are violative of Art 14.

   
  Case Title: G mohan Rao and Ors vs State of Tamil Nadu WP (C) 1411 of 2020