C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 939, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5695 of 2021)
MAY 09, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act,
1997 – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (old LA Act) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new
LA Act) – Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation,
Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 – Whether the Industrial
Purposes Act and the Highways Act are void owing to inherent
arbitrariness and infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution –
In G. Mohan Rao, the Supreme Court observed that the contention,
based on comparative analysis of the State Acts and the new LA
Act, to establish violation of the equality clause u/Art. 14 of the
Constitution, is left open – Parties were given liberty to raise all
other issues not dealt with in that judgment – In C.A.Nos. 5692-
5693 of 2021, it is contended that the High Court erred in holding
that the Industrial Purposes Act was not liable to be invalidated on
the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution – The question arose was as to the locus standi of the
appellants, who admittedly purchased their lands after the initiation
of land acquisition proceedings, to maintain a challenge to the
provisions of the Act of 1997 and the proceedings initiated
thereunder – Whereas in
C.A.No. 5697 of 2021, appellants have
assailed the common order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High
Court, whereby challenge to the validity of the Highways Act, on
the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution, was rejected – The grievance of these two persons is
with regard to the acquisition of their lands by the State of Tamil
Nadu under the Highways Act – It is contended that the Highway
Act, 2001 is liable liable to be invalidated on the ground that its
provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared
with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 939
939
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Act, 2013 – Held: In C.A.Nos, 5692-5693 of 2021, they were
subsequent purchasers and deemed to aware of the acquisition
proceedings – In any event, neither of these subsequent purchasers
can be permitted to claim ignorance of the acquisition proceedings
– Mere passage of time and publication of the s.3(1) Notice after
their purchase of the lands would not save their sale transactions
or vest them with a right to attack the acquisition – In consequence,
no reason to entertain their challenge to the Industrial Purposes
Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution or their consequential challenge to the acquisition
proceedings – As far as C.A.No. 5697 of 2021 is concerned, the
Highways Act in the State of Tamil Nadu stood protected even at the
time the old LA Act was in force and effect, owing to the Presidential
assent that it had received u/Art. 254(2) of the Constitution, and it
continued to operate and provide altogether different yardsticks
for acquisition of land and payment of compensation till the advent
of the new LA Act – No doubt, the scheme of the new LA Act advocates
timely measures being adopted in implementation of the acquisition
and such general temporal restrictions would benefit the land
owners, but the absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act
may not be reason enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on
which the Highways Acts was enacted by the State
of Tamil Nadu
was to cut down on time-consuming processes.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5693 of 2021
1. The question that would arise is as to the locus standi of
the appellants, who admittedly purchased their lands after the
initiation of land acquisition proceedings, to maintain a challenge
to the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act and the
proceedings initiated thereunder. [Para 18][951-F-G]
2. As regards the issue of the appellants’ locus standi, that
very aspect was considered by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in
Shiv Kumar and another Vs. Union of India and others [(2019) 10
SCC 229]. The question therein was whether subsequent
purchasers of acquired land would be entitled to seek invalidation
of the acquisition on the ground of delay under Section 24(2) of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
the new LA Act. The Bench held that a sale transaction, effected
after the Notification under Section 4 of the old LA Act, is void
and would be ineffective to transfer the land and such a sale would
not clothe the subsequent purchasers with title, whereby they
could claim to be in possession. It was observed that it would be
profoundly unfair and unjust and against the policy of law to permit
such a purchaser to claim resettlement or claim the land back, as
envisaged under the new LA Act. [Para 22][953-A-C]
2. As both appellants seek to assail the validity of the
Industrial Purposes Act only in the context of the acquisition
proceedings initiated thereunder in relation to the lands
purchased by them after issuance of the Public Notice under
Section 3(2) thereof, viz., the equivalent of a Notification under
Section 4 of the old LA Act, their challenge is tainted and
unacceptable in its very inception. They were both subsequent
purchasers and are deemed to be aware of the acquisition
proceedings. In that regard, it may also be noted that the original
owners of the subject lands raised their objections in response
to the Public Notice issued under Section 3(2) in the year 2007,
but chose to sell their lands in 2012 and 2013. In any event,
neither of these subsequent purchasers can be permitted to claim
ignorance of the acquisition proceedings. In effect, the very sale
transactions under which they claim title and interest in the
subject lands are rendered
void in the eye of law. Mere passage
of time and publication of the Section 3(1) Notice after their
purchase of the lands would not save their sale transactions or
vest them with a right to attack the acquisition. In consequence,
this Court finds no reason to entertain their challenge to the
Industrial Purposes Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution or their consequential
challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-
5693 of 2021 are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this short
ground. [Para 23][953-F-H; 954-A-C]
Civil Appeal No.5697 of 2021
3. The Highways Act in the State of Tamil Nadu stood
protected even at the time the old LA Act was in force and effect,
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
owing to the Presidential assent that it had received under Article
254(2) of the Constitution, and it continued to operate and provide
altogether different yardsticks for acquisition of land and payment
of compensation till the advent of the new LA Act. [Para 40][961-
E-F]
4. No doubt, the scheme of the new LA Act advocates timely
measures being adopted in implementation of the acquisition and
such general temporal restrictions would benefit the land owners,
but the absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act may not
be reason enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on which
the Highways Acts was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to
cut down on time-consuming processes. In G. Mohan Rao , this
Court had noted that the letter dated 25.07.2019 written by the
State of Tamil Nadu, for obtaining the assent of the President of
India for the Validation Act of 2019, specifically emphasized that
the three State Acts were made for the purpose of speedy
acquisitions but the new LA Act rendered them repugnant.
Therefore, it is not the intendment or purpose of the Highways
Act that the processes for acquisition of land thereunder should
be protracted or be ridden by avoidable delays. [Para 42][962-D-
F]
5. Further, there is no possibility of the State of Tamil Nadu
exercising arbitrary discretion in adopting one legislation or the
other for the purpose of acquiring lands, as contended by the
learned counsel.
Sections 3, 7 and 11 of the Validation Act of
2019 expressly exclude the operation of the new LA Act for the
purposes contained in the State Acts which stood revived owing
to the assent of the President of India. Therefore, the State of
Tamil Nadu would be bound to apply only the Highways Act for
acquiring lands for the purposes reserved thereunder. [Para
44][963-B]
6. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be
invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest
discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. [Para
45][963-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar AIR
1954 SC 493 : [1955] SCR 599; P. Vajravelu Mudaliar
v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras and Others AIR
1965 SC 1017 : [1965] SCR 614 – followed.
G. Mohan Rao and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others AIR 2021 SC 3126; – relied on.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Ananthi Ammal and
Others (1995) 1 SCC 519 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 666;
K. Ramakrishnan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu
2007 WLR 372; S.N. Sumathy v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others 2015 SCC OnLine Madras 14055; Sri
Venkateswara Educational and Charitable Trust v. The
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Writ
Appeal No. 1063 of 2012, decided on 17.10.2022; Shiv
Kumar and Another v. Union of India and Others (2019)
10 SCC 229; UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow, and Another v.
Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 124 : [1996] 1
SCR 683; Sneh Prabha and Others v. State of UP and
Another (1996) 7 SCC 426 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264;
Union of India v. Shivkumar Bhargava and Others
(1995) 2 SCC 427 : [1995] 1 SCR 354; Meera Sahni
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2008) 9 SCC 177 :
[2008] 10 SCR 1012; V. Chandrasekaran and Another
v. Administrative Officer and Others (2012) 12 SCC
133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603; Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation v. Subhash
Sindhi Co-op. Housing Society, Jaipur (2013) 5 SCC
427 : [2013] 4 SCR 978; M. Venkatesh and Others v.
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015)
17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11
SCR 454; Nagpur Improvement
Trust and Others v. Vithal Rao and Others AIR 1973
SC 689 : [1973] 3 SCR 39; Union of India v. Tarsem
Singh and Others (2019) 9 SCC 304 : [2019] 13 SCR
49; Savitri Cairae and Others v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and Others (2003) 6 SCC 39; Joseph Shine
v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR
765; State of Kerala and Others v. T.M. Peter and Others
(1980) 3 SCC 554 : [1980] 3 SCR 290; State of
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471 :
[1978] 1 SCR 641; Deputy Commissioner and Collector,
Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sarma AIR 1968 SC 394 : [1968]
SCR 561; Javed and Others v. State of Haryana and
Others (2003) 8 SCC 369 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 947;
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and
Another (1998) 2 SCC 467 : [1998] 1 SCR 254 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 666
referred to
Para 7
[1996] 1 SCR 683
referred to
Para 22
[1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264
referred to
Para 22
[1995] 1 SCR 354
referred to
Para 22
[2008] 10 SCR 1012
referred to
Para 22
[2012] 10 SCR 603
referred to
Para 22
[2013] 4 SCR 978
referred to
Para 22
[2015] 11 SCR 454
referred to
Para 22
[1965] SCR 614
followed
Para 30
[1973] 3 SCR 39
referred to
Para 30
[2019] 13 SCR 49
referred to
Para 30
[1955] SCR 599
followed
Para 30
[2018] 11 SCR 765
referred to
Para 31
[1980] 3 SCR 290
referred to
Para 32
[1978] 1 SCR 641
referred to
Para 32
[1968] SCR 561
referred to
Para 36
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 947
referred to
Para 37
[1998] 1 SCR 254
referred to
Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-
5695 of 2021.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in WP Nos. 26234, 26028 of 2013, 10282 and
10283 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No. 5697 of 2021
Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, K.K. Venugopal, V. Krishnamurthy,
Sr. Advs., Suhrith Parthasarathy, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Remya
Raj, N. Subramaniyan, Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj, Ms. Neha
Rathi, Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, P.
Shankar, Ms. Shivani Jena, C. Kranti Kumar, Danish Saifi, Ms. Devyani
Gupta, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., M. Yogesh Kanna, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. Past events, contextual to these appeals, being of relevance
require recount at some length.
2. Long ago, the State of Tamil Nadu chose to exercise its right of
eminent domain to acquire land for its harijan welfare schemes, its
industrial purposes and its highways by deviating from the law and
procedure prescribed in the Central legislation, viz., ‘The Land Acquisition
Act, 1894’. In exercise of concurrent power under Entry 42 in List III of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, it enacted ‘The Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978’;
‘The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997’;
and ‘The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001’. These three State Acts
stood protected, despite being repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [hereinafter, ‘the old LA
Act’], owing to the Presidential assent
that they had received on 21.07.1978, 25.05.1999 and 16.09.2002
respectively, under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. However, upon
the Parliament promulgating the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 [hereinafter, ‘the new LA Act’], replacing the old LA Act, these
State Acts were rendered void, being repugnant thereto.
3. Pertinently, Section 105 of the new LA Act provided that the
said legislation would not apply or would apply with modifications to the
Central Government’s enactments relating to land acquisition, specified
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
in the Fourth Schedule thereto. In an attempt to save the three State
Acts, by taking a cue from Section 105 of the new LA Act, the Tamil
Nadu Legislative Assembly passed Bill No. 5 of 2014 on 22.02.2014,
amending the new LA Act. Thereby, Section 105-A was inserted in the
new LA Act, making the provisions thereof inapplicable or applicable
with modifications to the Acts relating to land acquisition in the State of
Tamil Nadu, which were specified in the newly added Fifth Schedule.
The three State Acts were shown in this Schedule. However, Bill No. 5
of 2014 was returned by the President of India pointing out some defects
and after curing of the same, it was reintroduced as Bill No. 30 of 2014.
It was then sent to the President of India for his assent and received the
same on 01.01.2015. In consequence, the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.1 of 2015), came into
force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2014.
4. Act No.1 of 2015 was subjected to challenge before the Madras
High Court in a batch of writ petitions. Writ Petition No.21323 of 2015
was also filed raising a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001
(for brevity, ‘the Highways Act’). On the same lines, Writ Petition Nos.
26028 and 26234 of 2013 were filed assailing the validity of the Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997
(for brevity,
‘the Industrial Purposes Act’), on the ground that it was ultra vires the
Constitution of India and seeking a consequential direction to the
authorities to drop the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands thereunder.
5. In W.P.No.26028 of 2013, the consequential prayer of the two
petitioners, viz. P.K. Muralidharan and V. Thirunarayanan, was to direct
the authorities not to acquire their lands in old Survey No. 93/4B(3),
presently Survey Nos. 93/58 and 93/59, of Pillaipakkam Village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk No. 103, Kancheepuram. In W.P.No.26234 of 2013,
the prayer of C.S. Gopalakrishnan, the petitioner therein, was to direct
the authorities to return his land in Survey No. 92/60, Patta No.1317,
Plot No. 236, Thripura Sundari Nagar, Pillaipakkam Village,
Sriperumbudur Taluk. Further, V. Thirunarayanan, the second petitioner
in W.P.No.26028 of 2013, also filed W.P.No.10282 of 2015 seeking a
declaration that Act No.1 of 2015 was ultra vires the Constitution and a
consequential direction to the authorities not to acquire his lands in
Kancheepuram District. Similarly, C.S. Gopalakrishnan, the sole petitioner
in W.P.No.26234 of 2013, filed W.P.No.10283 of 2015 seeking identical
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
reliefs. These four writ petitions, along with several others, were partly
allowed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, vide common
order dated 03.07.2019.
6. The common order dated 03.07.2019 reflects that the High
Court framed the following issues for consideration: -
‘1) Are the State enactments void because of inherent
arbitrariness?
2) Did the President of India fail to apply his mind while granting
assent to Section 105-A?
3) Did the impugned State enactments become repugnant once
the Parliament ‘made’ the new Land Acquisition Act. If so, did
the presidential assent to Section105-A inserted by Tamil Nadu
Act No. 1 of 2015 revive the three Acts?
4) Are the provisions of Section 105-A(2) and (3) mandatory, and
if so, whether non-compliance with these provisions (is, sic) fatal
to the validity of these enactments.’
7. As regards the first issue, the High Court noted that the validity
of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes
Act, 1978, was upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu
and others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and others [(1995) 1 SCC 519] and
that the Industrial Purposes Act was upheld by a Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in K. Ramakrishnan Vs. The Government of Tamil
Nadu [2007 WLR 372], wherein it was specifically held that the said
enactment did not suffer from any illegality, irrationality or procedural
impropriety. Similarly, the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (for brevity,
‘the Highways Act’), was
upheld by the Madras High Court in S.N.
Sumathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [2015 SCC OnLine
Madras 14055]. The High Court, therefore, opined that the three State
Acts could not be said to be irrational, capricious or without adequate
determining principles and rejected the contention that they were liable
to be invalidated on the ground of inherent arbitrariness.
8. On the second issue, the High Court held that all the material
was placed before the President of India and, therefore, it could not be
said that there was any non-application of mind by the President of India
while granting assent. The High Court also noted that the first Bill was
returned by the President pointing out some defects and it was only
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
after the same were cured that the Presidential assent was given. The
second issue was, therefore, decided accordingly.
9. Apropos the third issue, the High Court accepted the contention
of the writ petitioners that, as the new LA Act received Presidential
assent on 27.09.2013, all the three State Acts became void on that date
itself and Act No.1 of 2015 did not have the effect of reviving these void
State Acts. It was noted that Article 254(2) of the Constitution would
not apply to a law already made by a State which becomes repugnant as
a result of a new enactment made by the Parliament and it would not
offer protection to laws made by the State before the Central legislation.
The High Court opined that Article 254(2) of the Constitution required
the repugnant law to be reserved for consideration afresh by the President
for giving his assent thereto and, therefore, these State Acts had to receive
Presidential assent in the present sense. The High Court concluded that,
in order to bring an Act within the purview of Article 254(2) of the
Constitution, it must be re-enacted by the State and reconsidered by the
President and mere insertion of Section 105-A in the new LA Act was
inadequate. The High Court, accordingly, declared the three State Acts
void and held that Section 105-A did not resurrect them and was a mere
dead letter.
10. On the last issue, the High Court held Section 105-A(2) and
(3) to be mandatory.
Holding so, the Madras High Court allowed the
writ petitions to the extent indicated. However, the High Court deemed
it appropriate not to reopen the acquisitions made under the State Acts,
on or after 27.09.2013, where the acquired lands had already been put
to use and the purpose for which the lands were acquired had been
accomplished. The High Court held that as Section 105-A, inserted in
the new LA Act by Act No.1 of 2015, was rendered virtually otiose as
Act No.1 of 2015 did not meet the requirements of Article 254(2) of the
Constitution and did not have the effect of reviving the State Acts, the
validity of Section 105-A need not be independently examined.
11. SLP (C) Nos. 2063-2066 of 2020, which were thereafter
numbered as Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5695 of 2021, arose out of the
common order dated 03.07.2019 in so far as it pertained to
W.P.Nos.26234 & 26028 of 2013 and W.P.Nos.10282 & 10283 of 2015
respectively. V. Thirunarayanan, the second petitioner in W.P.No.26028
of 2013, and C.S. Gopalakrishnan, the sole petitioner in W.P.No.26234
of 2013, filed the first two SLPs aggrieved by the common order to the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
extent that it did not hold the Industrial Purposes Act to be void on the
grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The other two SLPs filed by them pertained to W.P.Nos.10282 and 10283
of 2015 respectively, relating to the validity of Act No.1 of 2015 and
Section 105-A.
12. During the pendency of these SLPs before this Court, the
State of Tamil Nadu again attempted to revive the three State Acts by
enacting ‘The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation,
Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019’ (for brevity, ‘the Validation Act
of 2019’). This Act received the assent of the President, under Article
254(2) of the Constitution, on 02.12.2019. It came into effect
retrospectively from 26.09.2013. The Validation Act of 2019 was
challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions. By judgment
dated 29.06.2021, reported in G. Mohan Rao and others Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu and others [AIR 2021 SC 3126], this Court held that the
said enactment was a legitimate legislative exercise which was consistent
with and fell within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution.
The writ petitions were, accordingly, dismissed.
13. It may be noted that one K.M. Vittal Babu and one
T. Chinnappan had filed W.P.No.5893 of 2018 before the Madras High
Court, wherein they had sought a declaration that Section 105-A inserted
in the new LA Act by Act No.1 of 2015 was unconstitutional. This writ
petition was also clubbed with the
batch of writ petitions, which came to
be disposed of by the common order dated 03.07.2019. While so, on
07.07.2021, K.M. Vittal Babu and T. Chinnappan filed I.A. No. 77573
of 2021 in SLP (C) Nos. 2063-2066 of 2020, which were numbered as
Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5695 of 2021, seeking to be impleaded therein.
They stated that the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act are in
pari materia with the provisions of the Highways Act, whereunder their
lands were acquired, and as there was no separate petition dealing with
the validity thereof, it was just and necessary that they get impleaded in
SLP (C) Nos. 2063-2066 of 2020 so as to question the pari materia
provisions of the Highways Act. Their impleadment application was
allowed on 09.09.2021. Surprisingly, two days later, on 11.07.2021, K.M.
Vittal Babu chose to file SLP (C) Diary No. 15466 of 2021 in the context
of W.P.No.21323 of 2015, referred to hereinbefore, wherein he was not
a party. In his application for permission to file the SLP, he stated that
W.P.No.21323 of 2015 raised a challenge to the Highways Act, which
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
was missing in his own writ petition and he, therefore, wanted to raise
that issue before this Court. He was granted leave to do so on 09.09.2021
and his SLP was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 5697 of 2021. His prayer
therein is to declare the Highways Act unconstitutional and void. Thus,
K.M. Vittal Babu figures as the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5697 of
2021 and is also impleaded as a respondent in the other appeals, along
with T. Chinnappan.
14. In the light of G. Mohan Rao (supra), the challenges before
this Court to Act No.1 of 2015 and Section 105-A are rendered redundant.
SLP (C) No. 4106 of 2020, involving such a challenge, was disposed of
on 09.09.2021. Therefore, Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 dealt with by the High
Court in the common order dated 03.07.2019 no longer require
consideration on merits. In consequence, though numbered thereafter,
Civil Appeal Nos. 5694 and 5695 of 2021 are infructuous and need no
adjudication. The only issue left for consideration is whether the Industrial
Purposes Act and the Highways Act are void owing to inherent
arbitrariness and infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this
context, it may be noted that, in paragraph 74 in G. Mohan Rao (supra),
this Court observed that the contention, based on comparative analysis
of the State Acts and the new LA Act, to establish violation of the equality
clause under Article 14 of the Constitution, is left open. Parties were
given
liberty to raise all other issues not dealt with in that judgment, in
relation to the validity of the State laws, in the pending cases arising
from the order dated 03.07.2019, including by getting themselves
impleaded.
15. Heard Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the
appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.5692-5693 of 2021; Mr. N. Subramaniyan,
learned counsel, appearing for K.M. Vittal Babu and T. Chinnappan;
and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the State
of Tamil Nadu and its authorities.
16. Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5693 of 2021: The Industrial
Purposes Act is founded on the premise that the State of Tamil Nadu
found it expedient to make special provision for speedy acquisition of
lands for industrial purposes in the State of Tamil Nadu and for matters
connected therewith. The scheme therein envisages that the Government
would cause a Public Notice to be given under Section 3(2) of the Industrial
Purposes Act, in such manner as may be prescribed, calling upon the
owner of the land and any other person, who in the opinion of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
951
Government may be interested in such land, to show-cause, within such
time as may be specified in the Public Notice, why the land should not
be acquired. Section 3(3) provides that after hearing and considering the
cause, if any, shown by the owner or person interested, the Government
may pass an order under Section 3(1). In turn, Section 3(1) states that
the Government may acquire any land required for any industrial purpose,
or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, by
publishing a Notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, specifying
the particular purpose for which the land is required. Once the Notice
under Section 3(1) is published in the Gazette, Section 4 states that the
land would vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances,
on and from the date of such publication.
17. The gravamen of the attack in the present appeals is that the
Madras High Court erred in holding that the Industrial Purposes Act
was not liable to be invalidated on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution. Various issues were raised in the course
of arguments in this regard, citing an abundance of caselaw. However, it
is an admitted fact that C.S. Gopalakrishnan purchased the land in Survey
No. 92/60, Patta No. 1317, Plot No. 236, Pillaipakkam Village,
Kancheepuram District, under registered sale deed dated 14.12.2012,
long after initiation of the acquisition proceedings, by issuance of the
Public
Notice on 23.10.2007, for setting up SIPCOT Industrial Park.
Similarly, V. Thirunarayanan, the other appellant, also purchased the land
in old Survey No. 93/4B(3), presently Survey Nos. 93/58 and 93/59,
Pillaipakkam Village, Kancheepuram District, under registered sale deed
dated 21.02.2013, well after the initiation of the aforestated acquisition
proceedings. However, the Notice under Section 3(1) of the Industrial
Purposes Act was published in the Gazette only in March, 2013, after
their purchase of the lands in question.
18. In the above milieu, the question that would arise is as to the
locus standi of the appellants, who admittedly purchased their lands
after the initiation of land acquisition proceedings, to maintain a challenge
to the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act and the proceedings
initiated thereunder.
19. It is the argument of the State that such subsequent purchasers
would have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and, in that
context, maintain an attack against the legislation under which such
acquisition is being made. It is further contended that, as the Section
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
3(1) Notice was published in the year 2013, i.e., before the coming into
force of the new LA Act, determination of the compensation in relation
thereto would be only on the basis of the old LA Act and not under the
new LA Act.
20. Per contra, the appellants assert that they would have locus
to challenge the validity of the Industrial Purposes Act, as their sale
transactions were nearly 6 years after issuance of the Public Notice
under Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Act and any reasonable
person would have a bonafide belief that such proceedings would have
lapsed owing to passage of time. They also contend that as per Section
4 of the Industrial Purposes Act, the acquired land would vest in the
Government only on publication of the Notice under Section 3(1) and,
therefore, a sale transaction prior thereto would not be rendered void.
They would argue that the State cannot freeze property rights for a
period of six years by issuing a Public Notice under Section 3(2) of the
Industrial Purposes Act and forgetting about it thereafter for years
together. Reference is made to the judgment of the Madras High Court
in Sri Venkateswara Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. The
Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and others [Writ Appeal
No. 1063 of 2012, decided on 17.10.2022], which held that in cases
where compensation still needed to be determined for acquisitions made
under the Industrial Purposes Act, the new LA
Act would apply perforce
and the base date for determining compensation would not be the date
on which the Section 3(2) Notice was issued but 01.01.2014, the date on
which the new LA Act came into force.
21. It may be noted that, after publication of the Notice under
Section 3(1), the appellants are stated to have filed writ petitions before
the Madras High Court in which orders of status quo were passed.
Those cases are stated to be pending as on date. We are not concerned
at this stage with the validity of individual acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Industrial Purposes Act. If the validity of such acquisition
proceedings is under challenge before the High Court, it is for the parties
to pursue the same and invite an adjudication on merits. Issues pertaining
to such individual acquisition proceedings, including quantification of
compensation and other aspects based on facts, can be decided in those
writ petitions and need not concern us at this stage. Presently, we are
only dealing with the challenge to the validity of the Industrial Purposes
Act and the Highways Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and breach of
Article 14 of the Constitution and no more.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
953
22. As regards the issue of the appellants’ locus standi, that very
aspect was considered by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar
and another Vs. Union of India and others [(2019) 10 SCC 229].
The question therein was whether subsequent purchasers of acquired
land would be entitled to seek invalidation of the acquisition on the ground
of delay under Section 24(2) of the new LA Act. The Bench held that a
sale transaction, effected after the Notification under Section 4 of the
old LA Act, is void and would be ineffective to transfer the land and
such a sale would not clothe the subsequent purchasers with title, whereby
they could claim to be in possession. It was observed that it would be
profoundly unfair and unjust and against the policy of law to permit such
a purchaser to claim resettlement or claim the land back, as envisaged
under the new LA Act. Support in this regard was drawn from the earlier
judgments in UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow, and another Vs. Kalra
Properties (P) Ltd. [(1996) 3 SCC 124]; Sneh Prabha and others
Vs. State of UP and another [(1996) 7 SCC 426]; Union of India Vs.
Shivkumar Bhargava and others [(1995) 2 SCC 427]; Meera Sahni
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others [(2008) 9 SCC 177]; V.
Chandrasekaran and another Vs. Administrative Officer and others
[(2012) 12 SCC 133]; Rajasthan State Industrial Development &
Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-op. Housing Society,
Jaipur [(2013) 5 SCC 427]; and M. Venkatesh and others
Vs.
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority [(2015) 17 SCC
1]. Be it noted that, in UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow (supra), Meera Sahni
(supra) and V. Chandrasekaran (supra), this Court held that such a
purchaser could not challenge the acquisition and would, at best, be entitled
to receive compensation.
23. As both C.S. Gopalakrishnan and V. Thirunarayanan seek to
assail the validity of the Industrial Purposes Act only in the context of
the acquisition proceedings initiated thereunder in relation to the lands
purchased by them after issuance of the Public Notice under Section
3(2) thereof, viz., the equivalent of a Notification under Section 4 of the
old LA Act, their challenge is tainted and unacceptable in its very
inception. They were both subsequent purchasers and are deemed to be
aware of the acquisition proceedings. In that regard, we may note that
the original owners of the subject lands raised their objections in response
to the Public Notice issued under Section 3(2) in the year 2007, but
chose to sell their lands in 2012 and 2013. In any event, neither of these
subsequent purchasers can be permitted to claim ignorance of the
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
acquisition proceedings. In effect, the very sale transactions under which
they claim title and interest in the subject lands are rendered void in the
eye of law. Mere passage of time and publication of the Section 3(1)
Notice after their purchase of the lands would not save their sale
transactions or vest them with a right to attack the acquisition. In
consequence, we find no reason to entertain their challenge to the
Industrial Purposes Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution or their consequential challenge to the
acquisition proceedings. Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5693 of 2021 are,
therefore, liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
24. Civil Appeal No. 5697 of 2021 et al: K.M. Vittal Babu and
T. Chinnappan assail the common order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the
Madras High Court, whereby challenge to the validity of the Highways
Act, on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution, was rejected. The grievance of these two persons is with
regard to the acquisition of their lands by the State of Tamil Nadu under
the Highways Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu had issued
GO.Ms.No.200, Highways and Minor Ports Department, dated
07.12.2011, proposing to acquire land for construction of a Flyover/Road
over Bridge to replace Railway Level Crossing No. 184 in Salem.
Thereafter, Public Notice dated 02.07.2016, under Section 15(2) of the
Highways
Act, which is the equivalent of Section 3(2) of the Industrial
Purposes Act, was issued calling for objections as to why their lands
should not be acquired for the said purpose. After consideration of the
objections received, Notice dated 01.02.2017 was published in the Tamil
Nadu Government Gazette, under Section 15(1) of the Highways Act,
which is the same as Section 3(1) of the Industrial Purposes Act.
Thereupon, these two persons filed W.P.No.3276 of 2017 before the
Madras High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and status
quo was ordered therein. This case is pending as on date.
25. The Validation Act of 2019 states that the provisions in the
First Schedule, the Second Schedule and the Third Schedule to the new
L.A. Act shall apply to land acquisition proceedings under the Highways
Act. Part III of the Validation Act of 2019 pertains to the Highways Act.
Section 10(1) therein states that all the provisions of the Highways Act,
except the provisions relating to determination of compensation, shall
stand revived with effect on and from 26.09.2013. Section 10(2) states
that all rules, notifications, notices, orders, directions issued or any other
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
proceedings initiated under the Highways Act, except those relating to
determination of compensation, which were in force immediately before
26.09.2013 shall, for all purposes, be deemed to have been revived on
and from 26.09.2013. Section 10(3) states that the provisions relating to
determination of compensation as specified in the First Schedule;
rehabilitation and resettlement as specified in the Second Schedule; and
infrastructure amenities as specified in the Third Schedule to the new
L.A. Act, shall apply to the acquisition proceedings under the Highways
Act. Section 11 states that except as provided in the Validation Act of
2019, the provisions of the new L.A. Act shall cease to apply to any land
which is required for the purposes specified in Section 15(1) of the
Highways Act and any such land shall be acquired by the Government
only in accordance with the provisions of the Highways Act.
26. Though Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5693 of 2021 are liable to be
dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the arguments of Mr. Suhrith
Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing therein, were adopted in toto
by Mr. N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for K.M. Vittal Babu and T.
Chinnappan. This adoption of arguments is based on the premise that
the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act are in pari materia with
the provisions of the Highways Act, with which they are concerned. In
that view of the matter, we shall advert to the arguments advanced by
both the learned
counsel in the context of the Highways Act alone.
27. The Highways Act is stated to be discriminatory, both with
regard to determination of compensation as well as the acquisition
procedure, when compared to the new LA Act. Reference is made to
the provisions of the new LA Act which require the appropriate
Government to consult the local authorities in the affected area and to
carry out a Social Impact Assessment Study in consultation with them.
It is pointed out that a Social Impact Assessment Study Report would
lapse, under Section 14 of the new LA Act, if the Preliminary Notification
under Section 11 is not issued within 12 months from the date that such
report is submitted, and in such an event, a fresh Social Impact
Assessment Study has to be undertaken before acquisition proceedings
are initiated. It is pointed out that the First Schedule to the new LA Act
states that the market value of the land is to be determined as per Section
26 thereof. The proviso to Section 26(1) of the new LA Act, in turn,
links the market value to the date on which the Preliminary Notification
is issued under Section 11. The Notification under Section 11 of the new
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
LA Act is equivalent to the Public Notice issued under Section 15(2) of
the Highways Act. The Declaration under Section 19 of the new LA
Act is on par with the Notice published under Section 15(1) of the
Highways Act.
28. In the context thereof, it is pointed out that Section 19(7) of
the new LA Act prescribes the time limit of one year between the
Notification under Section 11 and the publication of the Declaration under
Section 19 and in the event of failure to abide by this time stipulation, the
Preliminary Notification is deemed to lapse, subject to exceptions in terms
of the second proviso to Section 19(7) of the new LA Act. Similarly,
Section 25 of the new LA Act provides that the Award must be passed
within 12 months of the Declaration under Section 19 and if not, the
entire proceedings would lapse, subject to the proviso to Section 25,
which entitles the Government to extend the time. However, as all these
provisions do not find reflection in the First Schedule to the new LA Act,
which has been extended to the Highways Act, the timelines put in place
to safeguard the interests of the land owners would not be applicable to
an acquisition thereunder. In consequence, there would be no restriction
upon the State of Tamil Nadu to complete the exercise in a time-bound
manner and compensation would be determined by taking into
consideration a market value from the distant past, which would not be
the case had the
acquisition been under the new LA Act. In the light of
the flexibility afforded to the State Government, it is argued that the
market value of the acquired land would change to the detriment of the
land owner.
29. It is further pointed out that the procedure prescribed in Section
28 of the new LA Act for determining the amount of compensation is
not followed by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Highways Act and
more particularly, the power given to the Collector under Section 28(7)
of the new LA Act to take into consideration any other ground which
may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected
families. It is also their grievance that safeguards provided in the new
LA Act, which are beneficial to land owners, are not available in the
Highways Act, both in relation to the quantum of compensation as well
as the procedure. Reference is made to Section 39 of the new LA Act,
which provides for additional compensation in case of multiple
displacements and it is pointed out that no such relief is provided in the
Highways Act, despite multiple acquisitions for widening of highways.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
30. It is contended that though the Validation Act of 2019 applies
the provisions of the new LA Act to the Highways Act insofar as
compensation is concerned, the selective application of the provisions of
the new LA Act would result in discrimination even in the matter of
compensation. It is pointed out that timelines prescribed under the new
LA Act, which are not relatable to the First Schedule to the new LA Act,
are not made applicable under the Validation Act of 2019 and the absence
of such timelines would permit the State to peg the market value for
determining compensation on a date in the remote past, thereby depriving
the land owners of just and fair compensation. According to the learned
counsel, though there is de jure parity between the new LA Act and the
State Acts, there would actually be de facto discrimination in the payment
of compensation. Reference is made to P. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs.
Special Deputy Collector, Madras and others [AIR 1965 SC 1017],
Nagpur Improvement Trust and others Vs. Vithal Rao and others
[AIR 1973 SC 689], Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and others
[(2019) 9 SCC 304], Savitri Cairae and others Vs. U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad and others [(2003) 6 SCC 39] and The State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.C. Mandawar [AIR 1954 SC 493].
31. It is asserted that there is no intelligible differentia between
land owners whose lands are acquired under the Highways Act and
those whose lands are acquired under the new LA Act and it would
amount to an unreasonable classification if they are denied compensation
on the same terms, when their lands are acquired for public purposes.
An example is cited, where a person’s land may be acquired under the
Highways Act while his neighbour’s land, which is identically situated in
all respects, is acquired under the new LA Act, but they would be given
compensation on different criteria owing to the absence of timelines in
the Highways Act, which would permit the State to peg the market
value on a past date to determine the compensation unlike the situation
obtaining under the new LA Act. Reference is made to Joseph Shine
Vs. Union of India [(2019) 3 SCC 39] to contend that when a statute
is arbitrary, it would offend Article 14 of the Constitution and would
require to be struck down. It is also argued that certain critical clauses
pertaining to compensation, contained in Sections 27 to 30 of the new
LA Act, are not brought into play in the Highways Act, as only the First
Schedule to the new LA Act has been incorporated therein, causing
discrimination, as land owners whose lands have been acquired under
the Highways Act would not be entitled to the benefits under these
provisions of the new LA Act.
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
32. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel,
would point out that the timelines fixed in the new LA Act are not
sacrosanct as the provisions thereof permit extension of time in certain
circumstances. It is pointed out that, once such an extension is granted,
no outer limit is prescribed and, therefore, the argument that the new LA
Act places binding temporal constraints on the State is not correct. It is
pointed out that the second proviso to Section 19(7) of the new LA Act
empowers the Government to extend the period of 12 months if, in its
opinion, circumstances exist to justify the same and, in effect, there is no
distinction between the Highways Act and the new LA Act. Reference
is made in this regard to State of Kerala and others Vs. T.M. Peter
and others [(1980) 3 SCC 554]. Reliance is placed upon the State of
Karnataka Vs. Ranganatha Reddy [(1977) 4 SCC 471] in support
of the contention that a State law enacted on a subject in the Concurrent
List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would stand protected
after it receives the assent of the President under Article 254(2), even if
it is repugnant to the Central legislation on the same subject, and it is
argued that any such repugnancy would stand cured and would no longer
be a ground to invalidate the Highways Act.
33. It is contended that the question of comparing the Highways
Act with the new LA Act would not arise at all, as any
repugnant provision
in the Highways Act would continue to operate notwithstanding the
contrary provision in the new LA Act, as the Validation Act of 2019,
which revived the Highways Act, stood protected by the assent given by
the President of India under Article 254(2). It is pointed out that the
Public Notice under Section 15(2) of the Highways Act was issued on
02.07.2016 and was followed by publication of the Notice under Section
15(1) thereof on 01.02.2017, i.e., a mere 7 months later. It is argued that,
even in a case where delay ensued due to factors beyond control or any
other incidental reason, it would not be sufficient in itself to declare the
legislation void on that short ground.
34. Having given serious and thoughtful consideration to the matter,
we must first take note of certain crucial aspects that practically clinch
the issue. The very foundation and basis of Article 254(2) of the
Constitution is that a particular State enactment runs contra to the
provisions of a Central legislation on the same subject, but despite the
same it would stand protected after it receives the assent of the President
of India thereunder. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that disparity
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
and discrimination would be writ large between the two enactments and
aspects relating to their implementation. In such a situation, the question
of comparing the two legislations, for the purpose of making out a case
under Article 14 of the Constitution, would not arise. Such an exercise
would be akin to comparing chalk with cheese, i.e., two essentially unequal
entities.
35. Notably, in G.C.Mandawar (supra), a Constitution Bench
observed that it is conceivable that, when the same legislature enacts
two different laws but in substance they form one legislation, it might be
open to the Court to disregard the form and treat them as one law and
strike it down if, in their conjunction, they result in discrimination, but
such a course would not be open where the two laws sought to be read
in conjunction are by different Governments and by different Legislatures
as Article 14 does not authorize the striking down of a law of one State
on the ground that, in contrast with a law of another State on the same
subject, its provisions are discriminatory and nor does it contemplate a
law of the Centre or of the State, dealing with similar subjects, being
held to be unconstitutional by a process of comparative study of the
provisions thereof. The Bench pointed out that the sources of authority
for the two statutes being different, Article 14 can have no application.
This was the very logic that was applied by this Court in Ananthi Ammal
(supra), while upholding the
validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978.
36. In P. Vajravelu Mudaliar (supra), a Constitution Bench was
dealing with an amendment to the old LA Act brought by the Madras
Legislature, whereby different principles were specified for fixing
compensation for lands acquired for housing schemes when compared
with acquisition for other purposes. Significantly, this was not a case
where Presidential assent was obtained under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution. It was in those circumstances that the Bench observed
upon a comparative study of the old LA Act and the Amending Act that,
if a land is acquired for a housing scheme under the Amending Act, the
claimant would get a lesser value than what he would get for the same
land if it was acquired for a different public purpose under the old LA
Act and such classification between persons whose lands were acquired
for housing schemes and those whose lands were acquired for other
public purposes would not be a reasonable one under Article 14. It was
on that ground that the Bench held the Amending Act to be void, as it
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
clearly infringed Article 14 of the Constitution. Similar was the situation
in Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup Vs. Durga Nath
Sarma [AIR 1968 SC 394] and Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra),
as those cases also did not involve validation of a repugnant State law
under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
37. In Ranganatha Reddy (supra), a Constitution Bench of 7
Judges observed that the repugnancy, if any, between a State Act and a
Central Legislation on a subject in the Concurrent List would stand cured
if the State Act receives the assent of the President under Article 254(2)
and such repugnancy cannot thereafter be a ground to invalidate the
State Act. Again, in Javed and others Vs. State of Haryana and others
[(2003) 8 SCC 369], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court held that it is not
permissible to compare a piece of legislation enacted by a State in exercise
of its own legislative power with the provisions of another law, though
pari materia it may be, but enacted by the Parliament or by another
State Legislature within its own power to legislate, as the sources of
power are different and so do differ those who exercise the power. It
was observed that two laws enacted by two different Governments and
by two different legislatures can be read neither in conjunction nor by
comparison for the purpose of finding out if they are discriminatory and
Article 14 does not authorize the striking down of a law of one State
on
the ground that, in contrast with a law of the Centre or of another State
on the same subject, its provisions are discriminatory.
38. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam and
another [(1998) 2 SCC 467], this Court was dealing with a State Act
for acquisition of land for executing housing schemes. However, the
compensation payable thereunder was lesser than that payable under
the old LA Act. This State law was of the year 1965 and had received
the assent of the President. However, the old LA Act was amended by
the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, whereby several new
provisions were inserted in the interest of the land owners, by enhancing
the amount of solatium and interest. The State Act of 1965, however,
remained unchanged. The High Court came to the conclusion that the
land owners would be entitled to the benefit of the provisions introduced
in the old LA Act by the Amendment Act of 1984. The matter thereupon
came before this Court. This Court held that Section 55 of the State Act
of 1965, which incorporated the provisions of the old LA Act, also intended
that the amendments to the old LA Act relating to determination of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
compensation would be applicable to acquisition of lands under the State
Act of 1965. Owing to this construction and interpretation of the statutory
provision, this Court held that it would not be necessary to deal with the
submission that, if the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1984 were
not applicable to acquisitions under the State Act of 1965, the provisions
of the old LA Act made applicable under the State Act of 1965 would be
void on the ground of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution.
This judgment, therefore, does not aid or advance the case of the
appellants.
39. Similar logic was applied by this Court in Savitri Cairae (supra),
while dealing with the very same State Act of 1965. Noting that it provided
for acquisition of land in terms of the old LA Act and by reason of the
legal fiction created thereunder, this Court held that, even if the acquisition
was made under the State Act of 1965, if higher amount of compensation
is payable under the old LA Act, such higher amount of compensation
has to be paid. Pertinently, this Court observed that, ordinarily, the equality
clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in
the matter of enforcement of a State legislation vis-à-vis Parliamentary
legislation and/or legislation of another State.
40. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the attack launched
against the Highways Act on the strength of the so-called disparity and
discrimination in the norms and
procedures prescribed therein when
compared with the new LA Act. In this regard, we may point out that
the Highways Act in the State of Tamil Nadu stood protected even at
the time the old LA Act was in force and effect, owing to the Presidential
assent that it had received under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, and
it continued to operate and provide altogether different yardsticks for
acquisition of land and payment of compensation till the advent of the
new LA Act.
41. Even otherwise, in so far as the issue of social impact
assessment and the timelines for various steps in the new LA Act are
concerned, this very argument was advanced in G. Mohan Rao (supra)
and this Court observed that the whole exercise of pointing out any
repugnancy after a validating Act has obtained the assent of the President
is otiose for the whole purpose of Article 254(2) of the Constitution is to
resuscitate and operationalize a repugnant Act or repugnant provisions
of such Act. The inescapable fact also remains that the second proviso
to Section 19(7) of the new LA Act empowers the appropriate
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
Government to extend the stipulated period of 12 months for publishing
the Declaration after issuance of a Preliminary Notification if, in its
opinion, circumstances exist to justify the same. The third proviso requires
that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing
and the same shall be notified and uploaded on the website of the authority
concerned. More importantly, once such extension is granted, there is
no outer limit prescribed and the proceedings would not lapse owing to a
time stipulation. In T.M. Peter (supra), while dealing with the attack
against absence of a time limit for Government sanction in the Town
Planning Act, 1932, this Court observed that, as the scheme of the said
enactment was urgent improvement of a town and it was left to the
Government to deal with it with expeditious dispatch, no precise time
scale could be fixed in the Act owing to the myriad factors which would
have to be considered by the Government before granting sanction to a
scheme and concluded by stating that the Court would not be powerless
to quash and grant relief where, arbitrary protraction or malafide inaction
of the authorities caused injury to an owner.
42. No doubt, the scheme of the new LA Act advocates timely
measures being adopted in implementation of the acquisition and such
general temporal restrictions would benefit the land owners, but the
absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act
may not be reason
enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on which the Highways Acts
was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to cut down on time-
consuming processes. In G. Mohan Rao (supra), this Court had noted
that the letter dated 25.07.2019 written by the State of Tamil Nadu, for
obtaining the assent of the President of India for the Validation Act of
2019, specifically emphasized that the three State Acts were made for
the purpose of speedy acquisitions but the new LA Act rendered them
repugnant. Therefore, it is not the intendment or purpose of the Highways
Act that the processes for acquisition of land thereunder should be
protracted or be ridden by avoidable delays.
43. A particular instance or a stray case, involving some delay in
the acquisition of land under the Highways Act, may have to be dealt
with on its own individual merits but that would not be sufficient in itself
to invalidate the legislation itself. As noted above, K.M. Vittal Babu and
T. Chinnappan have already approached the Madras High Court
challenging the individual acquisition proceedings initiated against them
and those cases have to be considered on their own merits and in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
963
accordance with law, without reference to this adjudication which is
limited only to the attack on the validity of the Highways Act.
44. Further, there is no possibility of the State of Tamil Nadu
exercising arbitrary discretion in adopting one legislation or the other for
the purpose of acquiring lands, as contended by the learned counsel.
Sections 3, 7 and 11 of the Validation Act of 2019 expressly exclude the
operation of the new LA Act for the purposes contained in the State
Acts which stood revived owing to the assent of the President of India.
Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu would be bound to apply only the
Highways Act for acquiring lands for the purposes reserved thereunder.
45. On the above analysis, these appeals are bereft of merit. The
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the
ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when
compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
The appeals are dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. v. THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & OTHERS [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]