State laws on land acquisition remain valid under Article 254(2) even if repugnant to central legislation, provided they received Presidential assent, but the new LA Act's enactment voids these state laws and does not revive them.

JUDGEMENT

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 Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.05.09 17:27:13 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified 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,