Subramonium Prasad, J.

(Prayer in W.P. No.22448/2018: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of declaration, declaring The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act) 2014 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2015) as ultra vires Article 14 of The Constitution of India and the Principal Act, namely The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and consequently declare the show cause notice dated 19.06.2018 issued by the 5th respondent herein under sub-section (2) of the Section (3) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) as null and void.

1. Writ Petitions have been filed challenging:-

(a) Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2015 by which Section 105-A was inserted into the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, hereinafter called as the new Land Acquisition Act;

(b) The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001; and

(c) Tamil Nadu Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

By consent of parties, all the writ petitions have been grouped together and disposed of by this common order.

Background of the case and the Central Enactments

2. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Old Act”) was enacted for the acquisition of land needed for public purposes/companies and for determining the amount/quantum of compensation to be paid to the landowners on account of such acquisition. Over the years, it was found that the lands were indiscriminately acquired which resulted in drastic reduction of agricultural lands. Agriculturists were reduced to landless labourers. It was the grievance of the landless that there were no proper schemes for rehabilitation of persons, who were deprived of their land. Agriculturists were also aggrieved because their sole means of livelihood was lost, as a result of the acquisition for purposes which were admitted after a substantial lapse of time.

3. In the year 2003, National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation was formulated and it was accepted that society should have a clear perception of the reason behind land acquisition, and the benefits that will flow from such acquisition. The adverse socio-economic and cultural impacts resulting from acquisition of land were also to be examined. This policy was replaced by the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2007, which also directed State Governments to acquire land, keeping in mind the new rehabilitation policy.

4. Despite these policies, large scale acquisition by the State Governments continued, and therefore the Parliament, thought it fit to bring out a new Legislation to govern the law relating to Land Acquisition, by enacting the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the “New Act”). The statement of objects and reasons, which is self-explanatory and reads as under :

“The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the general law relating to acquisition of land for public purpose and also for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition. The provisions of the said Act have been found to be inadequate in addressing certain issues related to the exercise of the statutory powers of the State for involuntary acquisition of private land and property. The Act does not address the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons and their families.

2. The definition of the expression “public purpose” as given in the Act is very wide. It has, therefore, become necessary to re-define it so as to restrict its scope for acquisition of land for strategic purposes vital to the State, and for infrastructure projects where the benefits accrue to the general public. The provisions of the Act are also used for acquiring