GOA FOUNDATION & ANR. versus STATE OF GOA & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 29-03-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 1 S.C.R. 1025 
GOA FOUNDATION & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GOA & ANR. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.131 of2009) 
MARCH 29, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 41 - Land Acquisition (Goa 
Amendment) Act, 2009 - Constitutional validity - Agreement 
executed between the Government and respondent no. ](engaged 
in hotel industry) u/s. 41 of the Principal Act - Clause 4(viii) of the 
Agreement imposed bar with regard to raising of construction on 
the acquired land by respondent no. 3 - Construction raised by 
respondent no. 3 challenged and this Court by order dated 
20.01.2009 passed demolition order - Thereafter, Goa Amendment 
Act of 2009 passed amending s. 41 by addition of sub-sections 6 to 
9 and clause 4(viii) of the Agreement stood deleted - Validity of the 
Goa Amendment Act of 2009 - Held: Goa Amendment Act, 2009 1~· 
valid - There is no repugnancy between the Principal Act and the 
State Amendment - Section 41 of the Principal Act and the terms of 
the agreement executed thereunder are silent with regard to 
modification/variation or deletion/subtraction of the terms of the 
agreement - State Amendment Act by bringing in sub-sections (6) to 
(9) of s. 41 invalidates clause ./(viii) of the agreement by effecting a 
deletion thereof with retrospective effect (the date of coming into 
operation of the Principal Act to the State ofGoa)-State Amendment, 
by no means, sets the law in a collision course with the Central/ 
Principal enactment - As regards, States competency to enact the 
State Amendment Act in view of the earlier decision of this Court, 
iudicial pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on 
the citizens cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act 
- However, the legislature would be competent to pass an amending 
or a validating act, if deemed fit, with retro~pective effect removing 
the basis of the decision of the Court- Once clause 4(viii) is removed 
the basis of the earlier judgment stands extinguished - Thus, it was 
within the domain of the legislature to bring about the Amendment 
Act with retrospective effect. 
1025 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa 
Amendment) Act, 2009 is upheld. [Para 32)[1044-C-DJ 
1.2 The power to invalidate a legislative or executive act 
lies with the Court. A judicial pronouncement, either declaratory 
or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be set at naught by a 
subsequent legislative act for that would amount to an 
encroachment on the judicial powers. However, the legislature 
would be competent to pass an amending or a validating act, if 
deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of the 
decision of the Court. Even in such a situation the courts may 
not approve a retrospective deprivation of accrued rights arising 
from a judgment by means of a subsequent legislation. However, 
where the Court's judgment is purely declaratory, the courts will 
lean in support of the legislative power to remove the basis of a 
Court judgment even retrospectively, paving the way for a 
restoration of the status quo ante. Though the consequence may 
appear to be an exercise to overcome the judicial pronouncement 
it is so only at first blush; a closer scrutiny would confer legitimacy 
on such an exercise as the same is a normal adjunct of the 
legislative power. The whole exercise is one of viewing the 
different spheres of jurisdiction exercised by the two bodies i.e. 
the judiciary and the legislature. The balancing act, delicate as it 
is, to the constitutional scheme is guided by well defined values. 
[P;ira 241[1039-C-G] 
1.3 Applying the principles in B/wktwar Trust & Ors, it 
follows that Section 41(6) to (9) introduced in the Principal Act 
by the Goa State Amendment renders ineffective Clause 4(viii) 
4 of the Agreement executed by the parties under Section 41 of 
the Principal Act. With Clause 4(viii) being deleted the embargo 
on constructions on the acquired land is removed. It is the said 
Clause 4(viii) and its legal effect, in view of Section 42, that was 
G 
the basis of the Court's decision dated 20th January, 2009 holding 
the construction raised by the third respondent on the acquired 
land to be illegal and contrary to the Principal Act. Once Clause 
4(viii) is removed the basis of the earlier judgment stands 
extinguished. In fact,

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