SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
C.S. Gopalakrishnan etc. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.5692-5695 of 2021 with Civil Appeal No. 5697 of 2021
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section 15 – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Court not inclined to entertain attack launched against Highways Act on strength of so-called disparity and discrimination in norms and procedures prescribed therein when compared with new LA Act – There is no possibility of State of Tamil Nadu exercising arbitrary discretion in adopting one legislation or other for the purpose of acquiring lands – State of Tamil Nadu would be bound to apply only Highways Act for acquiring lands for the purposes reserved thereunder. (Paras 40, 44 and 45)
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. Past events, contextual to these appeals, being of relevance require recount at some length.
2. Long ago, the State of Tamil Nadu chose to exercise its right of eminent domain to acquire land for its harijan welfare schemes, its industrial purposes and its highways by deviating from the law and procedure prescribed in the Central legislation, viz., ‘The Land Acquisition Act, 1894’. In exercise of concurrent power under Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, it enacted ‘The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978’; ‘The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997’; and ‘The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001’. These three State Acts stood protected, despite being repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter, ‘the old LA Act’], owing to the Presidential assent that they had received on 21.07.1978, 25.05.1999 and 16.09.2002 respectively, under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. However, upon the Parliament promulgating the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [hereinafter, ‘the new LA Act’], replacing the old LA Act, these State Acts were rendered void, being repugnant thereto.
3. Pertinently, Section 105 of the new LA Act provided that the said legislation would not apply or would apply with modifications to the Central Government’s enactments relating to land acquisition, specified in the Fourth Schedule thereto. In an attempt to save the three State Acts, by taking a cue from Section 105 of the new LA Act, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed Bill No. 5 of 2014 on 22.02.2014, amending the new LA Act. Thereby, Section 105-A was inserted in the new LA Act, making the provisions thereof inapplicable or applicable with modifications to the Acts relating to land acquisition in the State of Tamil Nadu, which were specified in the newly added Fifth Schedule. The three State Acts were shown in this Schedule. However, Bill No. 5 of 2014 was returned by the President of India pointing out some defects and after curing of the same, it was reintroduced as Bill No. 30 of 2014. It was then sent to the President of India for his assent and received the same on 01.01.2015. In consequence, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.1 of 2015), came into force with retrospective effect from 01.01.2014.
4. Act No.1 of 2015 was subjected to challenge before the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions. Writ Petition No.21323 of 2015 was also filed raising a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (for brevity, ‘the Highways Act’). On the same lines, Writ Petition Nos. 26028 and 26234 of 2013 were filed assailing the validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (for brevity, ‘the Industrial Purposes Act’), on the ground that it was ultra vires the Constitution of India and seeking a consequential direction to the authorities to drop the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands thereunder.
5. In W.P.No.26028 of 2013, the consequential prayer of the two petitioners, viz. P.K. Muralidharan and V. Thirunarayanan, was to direct the authorities not to acquire their lands in old Survey No. 93/4B(3), presently Survey Nos. 93/58 and 93/59, of Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk No. 103, Kancheepuram. In W.P.No.26234 of 2013, the prayer of C.S. Gopalakrishnan, the petitioner therein, was to direct the authorities to return his land in Survey No. 92/60, Patta No.1317, Plot No. 236, Thripura Sundari Nagar, Pillaipakkam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk. Further, V. Thirunarayanan, the second petitioner in W.P.No.26028 of 2013, also filed W.P.No.10282 of 2015 seeking a declaration that Act No.1 of 2015 was ultra vires the Constitution and a consequential direction to the authorities not to acquire his lands in Kancheepuram Dist
Deputy Commissioner and Collector
G. Mohan Rao and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others AIR 2021 SC 3126 [Para 12] – Referred.
Javed and others v. State of Haryana and others (2003) 8 SCC 369 [Para 37] – Referred.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 [Para 31] – Referred.
M. Venkatesh and others v. Commissioner
Meera Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2008) 9 SCC 177 [Para 22] – Referred.
Nagpur Improvement Trust and others v. Vithal Rao and others AIR 1973 SC 689 [Para 30] – Referred.
P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector
Sneh Prabha and others v. State of UP and another (1996) 7 SCC 426 [Para 22] – Referred.
State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471 [Para 32] – Referred.
State of Kerala and others v. T.M. Peter and others (1980) 3 SCC 554 [Para 32] – Referred.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar AIR 1954 SC 493 [Para 30] – Referred.
State of Tamil Nadu and others v. Ananthi Ammal and others (1995) 1 SCC 519 [Para 7] – Referred.
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another (1998) 2 SCC 467 [Para 38] – Relied.
Union of India v. Shivkumar Bhargava and others (1995) 2 SCC 427 [Para 22] – Referred.
Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and others (2019) 9 SCC 304 [Para 30] – Referred.
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with provisions of the Right to Fair Compensati....
The court emphasized that failure to follow mandatory procedures in land acquisition invalidates the award, highlighting the necessity of proper notifications and consideration of market value as per....
The court upheld the applicability of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to compensation determinations under the National Highways Act, affirming the Arbitrator's decision to enhance compensation based on resid....
The court affirmed that the provisions of the National Highways Act remain valid, and the 2015 Order under Section 113(1) effectively extends the 2013 Act's benefits to land acquisition under the Fou....
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
Section 94 of 2013 Land Acquisition Act inapplicable to Highways Act acquisitions; only specified schedules for compensation, R&R apply. Belated claims post-award cannot halt projects, but affected u....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.