STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. versus D. ACHIAH CHETTY ETC.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 11-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
c 
.. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[M. 
STATE OF MYSORE &: ANR. 
v. 
D. ACHIAH CHETTY ETC. 
December 11, 1968 
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
V. RAM.\SWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
SS 
The Bangalore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act (Mys. 19 of 
1962). s. 2-Scope oj-Lef(islative competence to remove 
discrimina-
tion retrospectively-Validating 
Acts-Classification produced thereby-
!/ reasonable classification. 
In Mysore there were two Acts bearing on acquisition of 
private 
land for public pll!"pOS!'s. namely, the Mysore Land 
Acquisition Act, 
1894, and City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. A 
notification 
under s. 4 of tho Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for 
acquisition of tho respondents" plots in Bangalore. The procedure in tho 
Acquisition Act is a shortened procedure which is prejudicial to the owner 
of property acquired. The respondents challenged the acquisition 10 the 
High ,Court on variou$ grounds and the High Court allowed the petitions. 
The Stale appealed to this Court and while tho appeal was pending the 
Banp!ore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act, 1962, was passed and 
received the assent of the President, as required by the Constitution on 
May 4, 1963, It validates all a~uisitions made, proceedinl" held, noti-
fications issued or orders made m connection therewith, by the Stat• 
Oovmum:nl purporting 10 act under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 
before the Validating Act came into force, for the purpose of improve-
ment, expansion or development of the City of Ban2alore. 
It also pro-
vides tlmt pending proceedings may. be continued under the Mysore Land 
ACQuisition Act. 
The provisions 
are to 
be effective notwithstanding 
the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, or any other law, judgment, 
decree or order of anv court. Section 2(1) of the Validation Act, pro-
vides, that no order made under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act is to 
be called in question on the ground that the State Government was not 
competent to make acquisition for the purpose of improvement or on 
any ground whatsoever, and s. 2(2) Provides that a n.otification or order 
may be questioned in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore 
Land Acquisition Act 'and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the rules 
made thereunder. 
In this Court in spite of the Validating Act the respondents sought 
to support the judgment of the High Court on the grounds that : ( 1) 
there were still two Acts which covered the same field but prescribed 
two different procedures, and that the notifications issued following the 
more prejudicial procedure in the Mysore Land Acquisition Act were 
unconstitutional as that Act was discriminatory; (2) an acquisition or 
anything done, previously hit by Art. 14 cannot be validated unless the 
vice of unreasonable classification is removed, and so, the Validating Act 
was ineffective; (3) the Mysore Land Acquisition Act and the 
Land 
Acquisition Act. 1894, are general laws which must give wav to the 
special· law in the Improvement Act; and (4) There is still discrimina-
tion, because •. there are two classe' of cases, one, in whose case the Vali-
dating Act dispenaeo with the procedure. of the Improvement Act 
and 
th\ise, in whose case that procedure wi1t be followed 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1969) 3 S.C.R. 
HELD : ( I ) The supremacy of the Legislatur.. in India, within the 
constitutional limits of 
their jurisdiction is 
complete. 
By the 
non-
.obstante clause in the Validating Act, the Improvement Act.is put out of 
the way as if it were repealed or as if it had not been passed.. The Legisla-
ture has made ;retrospectively a single law for the acquisition of property 
and .rendered all acquisitions, made before the Validating Act was passed, 
to be 'governed by the Mysore Land Acquisition Act alone. 
Objections 
based on breach of Constitution or fundamental rights could be raised in 
spite of the words 'or on anv ground whatsoever' in the Validating Act, 
but, objections on the ground that there has been non..observancc of the 
provisions of the Improvement Act must fail. [6Z A-C; 63 A-BJ 
(2) It is wrong to assume that a 'discrimination arising from selection 
-0f one law for action rather than aoother, where two procedures are 
available, can never be righ_ted by removing retrospectively one of the 
A 
B 
competing laws from the field. 
If there is legislative competence, the 
C 
Legislature tan always put out of action retrospectively one of the pro-
cedur

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