G. MOHAN RAO & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 29-06-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 21 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2021] 6 S.C.R. 281
281
G. MOHAN RAO & ORS.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1411 of 2020)
JUNE 29, 2021
 [A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation,
Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019:
Constitutional validity of – Held: 2019 Act is a legitimate
legislative exercise and is consistent with and within the four corners
of Art.254 – Constitution of India.
Enactment of the 2019 Act by the State legislature – Legislative
competence of – State legislature enacted three State land acquisition
statutes-the 1978 Act, the 1997 Act and the 2001 Act – Union
legislature thereafter enacted the 2013 Act for land acquisition
across the country – Repugnancy between the Union and State
enactments – In view thereof, Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 was effected to the 2013 Act
whereby s. 105-A inserted in the 2013 Act, making the provisions of
the 2013 Act inapplicable to acquisition of land under the three
State enactments – Thereafter, the 2014 Act, along with the 1997
Act and 2001 Act, challenged before the High Court on the grounds
of repugnancy with the 2013 Act and violation of Article 14 – High
Court struck down and declared all three State laws to be void for
repugnancy and set aside all land acquisitions thereunder post
coming into effect of the 2013 Act – To protect the nullified State
enactments, the State legislature brought the 2019 Act – 2019 Act
was applied retrospectively from 26.09.2013 with the objective to
validate all pending acquisitions on and after that date under the
State enactments, otherwise quashed by the High Court – State
legislature enacting the 2019 Act, if transgressed the limits of its
legislative competence having the effect of nullifying/overruling the
judgment of the High Court – Held: Legislative intent behind the
2019 Act and more particularly, the assent accorded thereto by the
Governor and the President of India for overcoming repugnancy
with the Act made by the Parliament, was to revive the operation of
the State enactments declared as null and void being unconstitutional
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
and repugnant to the Act made by the Parliament and to amend the
same, as well as, validate the actions already taken by the State
authorities – Concerned constitutional bodies understood the
substance of what is placed before them – Concern is with the
substance of the legislature and not its form – 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-compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement and
infrastructure facilities – Effect of the 2019 Act is to change the
law retrospectively and not to overrule the judgment of the Court –
There is no irreconcilability between the High Court judgment and
the 2019 Act – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 –
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997
– Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Constitution of India – Art.
254.
Retrospective commencement of date of 2019 Act – Effect of
– Held: A law is said to be made on the day it obtains Presidential
assent u/Art. 111 or u/Art. 254 or of Governor u/Art. 200 –
Commencement of law, unlike making of law, is not a part of the
legislative process – For checking repugnancy, the relevant point
of time would be the date of assent and not date of commencement
– 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 – Date
has been chosen by the State legislature only by way of abundant
caution and, rightly – It is relevant to overcome the repugnancy
corresponding to the commencement of the 2013 Act – Adopting
any other interpretation would not only be unwarranted but would
also strike at the very purpose of a retrospective reviving and
validating enactment – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013– Constitution of India – Art. 254.
Presidential assent u/Art. 254(2) – Requirement of – Plea that
that the actual repugnancy was not pointed out to the Presiden

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