C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 09-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 und

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.