2016 Supreme(SC) 265

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Goa Foundation & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Goa & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2009 With Contempt Petition (C) No. 292 of 2009 In Civil Appeal No. 4154 of 2000
Decided on : 29-03-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
A judicial pronouncement cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act. However, legislature would be competent to pass an amending or a validating act with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court.
State Amendment Act in effect deleting clause 4(viii) of the agreement with retrospective effect i.e. 15.10.1964, not repugnant to Central/Principal enactment; rather it provides for something that is not barred under the Principal Act.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Separation of powers – Legislative and judicial functions – A judicial pronouncement, cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act – However, legislature would be competent to pass an amending or a validating act with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court – A decision of a court of law has a binding effect unless the very basis upon which it is given is so altered that the said decision would not have been given in the changed circumstances. (Para 24, 25)

       (2003) 5 SCC 298 – Relied upon

       (1978) 2 SCC 50 – Referred

       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 41(6) to (9) – High Court rendering judgment on basis of un-amended section 41 reflected in clause 4(iii) of agreement making construction on acquired land illegal in view of section 42 – Clause 4(iii) deleted in view of introduction of sub-sections (6) to (9) in section 41 – Removal of clause 4(iii) retrospectively extinguishing the basis of earlier judgment of High Court – If Clause 4(viii) had not existed at all, the judgment of the Court dated 20th January, 2009 would not have been forthcoming – Amendment with retrospective effect well within domain of legislature – Entry 42, List III, Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India. (Para 25)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 254 – Repugnancy – Conditions giving rise to – Restated. (Para 27)

       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 41 and 42 r/w State Amendment introducing sub-sections (6) and (9) in section 41 – Agreement under section 41 deemed to be part of the Act by virtue of section 42 – Provisions of section 41 and terms of agreement silent with regard to modification/variation or deletion/subtraction of the terms of the agreement – State Amendment Act in effect deleting clause 4(viii) of the agreement with retrospective effect i.e. 15.10.1964 – No repugnancy with Central/Principal enactment – Rather providing for something that is not barred under the Principal Act. (Para 28)

       (1979) 3 SCC 431; (2003) 1 SCC 228 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The challenge in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is to Constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 (Goa Act 7 of 2009) which was promulgated by the Governor of Goa on 11.04.2009 and notified in the Official Gazette on 30.04.2009.

       The third respondent in the writ petition i.e. M/s Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. is the owner of a hotel doing business in the name and style of Cidade de Goa. The said hotel has been constructed on land owned and possessed by the respondent. Sometime in November 1978, the third respondent addressed a letter to the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings so as to acquire land covered by Survey Nos. 803 and 804 (new nos.246/2 and 245/2) located within the area of Gram Panchayat Taleigao. The said land is contiguous to the plots owned by it on which the hotel was located. A notification under Section 4 of the Central/Principal Act was issued on 29.10.1980 declaring that the land covered by Survey Nos.803 and 804 was needed for the public purpose of tourism development.

       On execution of the agreement as required under Section 41 of the Act a declaration under Section 6 was made declaring that the acquired land was required for the purpose of tourism development. With effect from 26.3.1985 the third respondent was put in possession of the land in question and that the said respondent had provided sports and recreational facilities/amenities on the acquired land.

       On behalf of the third respondent, an application was made to the Panjim Planning and Development Authority for grant of permission for extension of the existing hotel building on survey nos. 787, 788 and 789. The aforesaid application was duly considered and recommended for acceptance by the EDC. Renewal/extension of the permission granted was sought with a deviation to include Survey/Plot No.803 (New 246/2) i.e. the acquired land. The proposal for extension/renewal with the deviation was granted straight away by the Goa Town and Country Planning Board.

       Thereafter, construction was raised by the third respondent inter alia on about 1,000 square mtrs. of land covered by Survey no.803 (246/2).

       The aforesaid construction raised and completed on the land covered by Survey No.803 (246/2) came to be challenged before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court, inter alia by the present writ petitioner. By judgment and order dated 25.04.2000, the challenge raised was upheld and the construction made by the third respondent was ordered to be demolished and the land resumed.

       Aggrieved, the third respondent challenged the said order of the High Court which was dismissed was Supreme Court.

       Thereafter the Amendment Act of 2009 (Act 7 of 2009) was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Goa amending Section 41 by addition of Sub-sections 6 to 9.

       Thereafter the original agreement was amended by a supplementary agreement which deleted clause 4(viii) of the original/principal agreement.

       Finding of the Court:

       State amendment to section 41 is constitutionally valid.

       Result: Appeal dismissed. Contempt petition disposed of.