2016 Supreme(SC) 810

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 And Contempt Petition (C) No. 292 of 2009, In Civil Appeal No. 4154 of 2000.
Decided On : 29-3-2016

MAIN POINT
The Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statutes – Amendment – Validating Act – Retrospectivity – A judicial pronouncement cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act – Would amount to encroachment on the judicial powers – However, legislature can pass an amending or a validating act with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court – Retrospectivity, except where judicial pronouncement is purely declaratory, would be subject to judicial review – It is open to the legislature to alter the law retrospectively, provided the alteration is made in such a manner that it would no more be possible for the Court to arrive at the same verdict – In other words, the very premise of the earlier judgment should be uprooted, thereby resulting in a fundamental change of the circumstances upon which it was founded. (Para 24, 25)

       (1978) 2 SCC 50; (2003) 5 SCC 298 – Relied upon

       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 42 r/w Clause 4(viii), Agreement between third respondent and Government – High Court holding constructions illegal in view of clause 4(viii) of the agreement which became part of section 42 and hence had force of law – Legislature removing clause 4(viii) by introducing sub-sections (6) to (9) in section 41 with retrospective effect – Basis of High Court judgment removed with retrospective effect – Subject of the Act falling in Entry No. 42 of List III – Well within competency of the State legislature – Amendment held valid. (Para 25)

       © Constitution of India – Article 254 – Repugnancy – Section 41 and clause 4(viii) of agreement silent with regard to modification/variation or deletion/subtraction of the terms of the agreement – Provision deleting clause 4(viii) introduced by amending Act not in collision with the principal Act – It is an additional provision acting in furtherance of the purpose of the acquisition under section 40(1)(aa) – Validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 upheld. (Para 28, 32)

       (1979) 3 SCC 431; 2002(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 578 : (2003) 1 SCC 228 – Relied upon

       Civil Appeal No. 4154, 4155 and 4156 of 2000; Writ Petition © No.131 of 2009, D\d. 29.03.2016 – Referred

       (d) Interpretation of statute – Public purpose – Petitioners contending the amendment motivated to benefit a single entity – Materials on record proving otherwise – Government taking the decision considering cases of similarly situated other parties as well – Contention rejected. (Para 29)

       (e) Interpretation of statute – Judicial propriety – Contention that amendment violates principles of rule of law and judicial review – Provisions of Sections 41(6) to (9), introduced by the State Amendment to Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Only incidental and consequential to the Amendment Act validating actions that had earlier received judicial disapproval – Contention rejected. (Para 31)

       Facts of the case:

       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 it, the third respondent. Sometime in November 1978, the third respondent addressed a letter to the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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 and contiguous to the plot(s) owned by it on which the hotel was located.

       As the acquisition of the land was to be made under Part VII of the Principal Act, there was an enquiry held as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act which was followed by an agreement dated 26.10.1983 as required under Section 41 of the Act.

       On execution of the aforesaid agreement 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 the said respondent had provided sports and recreational facilities/amenities on the acquired land.

       Sometime thereafter, 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 proposal for extension/renewal with the deviation was granted straight away by the Goa Town and Country Planning Board in the meeting held on 20.6.1991. Permission was granted by the Development Authority on 20.4.1992 to carry out development on land covered, amongst others, by Survey No.803. 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 came to be challenged before the 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.

       The third respondent challenged the said order of the High Court which was dismissed

       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 which was notified on 30.04.1999.

       On 6.3.2009 the original agreement was amended by a supplementary agreement which deleted clause 4 (viii) of the original/principal agreement

       Constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 is under challenge in this writ petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       The Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 is constitutionally valid.

       Result: Writ petition dismissed.