JUDGMENT :

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The Indian Constitution ordains a structure of governance wherein the three organs of the State are entrusted with independent functions. The Legislature legislates on the law, the Executive puts the law into execution and the Judiciary being the sentinel on the qui vive reviews and enforces the law in light of its primary role as the guardian of the Constitution. Thus, we the people of India have embraced a system of separation of powers for securing checks and balances. Consequently, in day-to-day functioning of the government institutions many a times a perception emerges about the “overstepping” between three organs. Similar grievance has been made in the case at hand. The extent and manner in which the basis of a judicial determination of unconstitutionality of a legislation could be altered by the legislature by subsequently enacting a validating or reviving legislation, without overstepping on the jurisdiction of the constitutional Court, is the pivotal issue in this case.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The present case is outcome of a long chain of proceedings at different forums. Traversing the entire storyline may not be relevant for the determination of the question at hand. Thus, we are delineating only the relevant facts in brief for a proper perspective.

3. The resource in the form of land is an essential requirement for the development of a nation. At the same time, property rights of individuals have always had an important status in the hierarchy of rights. To resolve this apparent conflict between right to property of individuals and duty of State towards holistic development, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894¹[for short, “1894 Act”] had been enacted as a uniform law for the whole country with the short title:

“An Act to amend the law for the acquisition of land for public purposes and for Companies.”

The 1894 Act was in force throughout the country. After 1950, when the Constitution came into force, we adopted the principle of distribution of powers and the legislative competence of the Union and States. It was differentiated on the basis of the Union List (List-I), State List (List-II) and the Concurrent List (List-III). As regards the subjects listed in the Concurrent List, the Union and States have been given concurrent powers to legislate. In pursuance thereof, the State of Tamil Nadu carved out three public purposes for which a different land acquisition law was envisioned. The three sectors were highways, industries and Harijan welfare schemes. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly enacted the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978²[for short, “1978 Act”], Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997³[for short, “1997 Act”] and Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001⁴[for short, “2001 Act”] Be it noted that besides the 1894 Act, the field of land acquisition was also governed by another enactment made by the Parliament being a special legislation, namely, the National Highways Act, 1956⁵[for short, “1956 Act”]. This Act was enacted to provide for the declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith including power to the competent authority to acquire lands required for national highways. Since there was a law made by the Parliament operating in the same field regarding land acquisition, the State obtained Presidential assent as per Article 254 to avoid repugnancy and thus, the aforementioned State Acts prevailed in the State.

4. The 1894 Act was found to be inadequate on certain aspects, including measures relating to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, and thus, the Parliament enacted the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013⁶[for short, “2013 Act”]. The Act received assent of the President of India on 27.09.2013 and came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The 2013 Act carried a special provision – Section 105 – to declare