STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus ANANTHI AMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 22-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
v. 
ANANTHI AMMAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 14-Tamil Nadu Acquisition oflandfor 
Harijan 
Welfare 
Schemes 
Act, 
1978--Constitutional 
validity-
Cha/lenged-Held, Except for provisions of Section 11 (1) insofar as they 
provide for payment of compensation in instalments, the Act is intra vires 
the Constitution-Provisions of section 11 (1) subsequent to words 'in a 
lump-sum' struck down. 
This appeal was filed by the State against the judgment and order 
of the High Court whereby the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for 
Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, was struck down as being ultra 
vires the Constitution of India. The High Court came to the conclusion 
that the Act did not enjoy the protection of Articles 31-C or 31-A and 
that it was violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300 A of the Constitution. 
The appellants submitted that the Act was not violative of Articles 
14 or 19 or 300-A and that, in any event, it was protect~d by reason of 
Article 31A. 
· 
The· respondents submitted that the Act was violative of Article 14 
inasmuch as it was enacted to acquire lands for a purpose which could 
as well be served by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
and that a comparison of the provisions of the said Act with those of 
the Land Acquisition Act showed that the provisions of the said Act 
were far harsher insofar as the land owner was concerned. It was 
further submitted that the said Act did not enjoy the protection 
conferred by Article 31C notwithstanding the declaration in that behalf 
contained in Section 2 thereof. 
It was further submitted that no enquiry required by Section 5 of 
the Land Acquisition Act was contemplated by the said Act. Whereas it 
was the Government which was required to consider objections and the 
need for acquisition and make a declaration thereafter that the land 
H 
was required for a publi.c purpose under .the Land Acquisition Act, it 
666 
-
STA TE v. ANANTHI AMMAL 
667 
was, under the said Act, left to the District Collector to be satisfied that A 
the land was required for the purpose of a Harijan Welfare Scheme. No 
enquiry into the value of the land was contemplated under the said Act 
inasmuch as a provision equivalent to section 11 of the Land 
Acquisition Act was not to be found in the said Act. Whereas the Land 
Acquisition Act set out the matter:; that were required to be considered 
for the purposes of award of compensation there was no such provision B 
in the said Act. The said Act did not provide for a reference to the court 
in regard to a claim for enhancement of compensation in the manner of 
section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act; it provided only for an appeal 
to the court and, having regard to the terms of Section 9, that appeal 
was restricted to the amount of solatium payable under section 7(2) of C 
the said Act. Section 11 of the said Act provided for the payment of the 
compensation amount in instalments in the event that the amount 
thereof exceeded Rs. 2,000. Section 13 of the said Act provided for a 
second appeal to the High Court only if the amount as determined by 
the prescribed authority exceeded such sum as might be prescribed. 
This sum was at the relevant time Rs. 50,000 which was the amount D 
prescribed for the purposes of all second appeals to the High Court -
under the rules for the purpose. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court · 
HELD : 1.1. When a statute is impugned under Article 14 of the E 
Constitution of India what the court has to decide is whether the statute 
is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it must be struck down. At best, a 
statute upon a similar subject which derives its authority from another 
source can be referred to, if its provisions have been said held to be 
reasonable or have stood the test of time, only for the purpose of 
indicating what may be said to be reasonable in the context. (674 D) 
F 
State of MP. v. G.C. Mandewar, [1955) 1SCR599. 
Sant Lal Bharti v. State of Punjab, [1988) 2 SCR 107, relied on. 
1.2. The provisions of section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of G 
Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 substantially encapsulate 
the provisions of sections 4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the only 
major difference being that, under the said Act, it is the District 
Collector an~ not the State Government who must be satisfied that the 
land is required to be 

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