'Legitimate Legislative Exercise' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019

The Supreme Court has held that the Tamil Nadu State legislature had legislative competence to enact Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 and is not inconsistent with Article 254 of the Constitution of India."We hold the 2019 Act to be a legitimate legislative exercise and find it to be consistent with and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment.", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari observed.The Madras High Court in the 2019 decision The Caritas India v Union of India held that three land acquisition laws enacted by Tamil Nadu legislature - Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act 1997, and Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act 1978 - as repugnant to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) passed by the Parliament. The High Court further held that all acquisitions done under these three Acts to be illegal with effect from September 27, 2013,the date on which RFCTLARR received presidential assent,To remedy this situation, on 19.07.2019, the State Government tabled a Bill to revive the operation of the these Acts and the same was named as Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 . This Act received the assent of the President in terms of Article 254(2) on 02.12.2019 and was applied retrospectively from 26.09.2013 with the objective to validate all pending acquisitions on and after that date under the State enactments, otherwise quashed by the High Court.Challenging this Act, some land owners approached the Apex Court. The following issues were considered by the bench in this case: (i) Whether the State legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2019 Act, a retrospective validating Act? (ii) Whether the State legislature transgressed the limits of its legislative competence having the effect of nullifying/overruling the judgment of the High Court, by enacting the 2019 Act? (iii) Whether the 1997 Act and 2001 Act again fall foul of Article 254 on account of being repugnant to the 2013 Act, owing to the date of retrospective commencement of the 2019 Act?State legislature had legislative competence to enact retrospective validating ActAs regards the competency of legislature to enact a retrospective validating Act, the bench referred to precedents and noted the following principles:(i) The legislature must be having power over the subject matter as also competence to make a validating law. (ii) There must be a clear validating clause coupled with substantive change in the earlier position. (iii) The retrospective operation must be specified clearly. (iv) There can be no express or declaratory overruling of the judgment of the Court. (v) It is permissible for the legislature to make a decision of the Court ineffective by removing the material basis of the decision in the manner that the Court would not have arrived at the same conclusion had the corrected/modified position prevailed at the time of rendering the said earlier decision.The petitioners had contended that the moment the Court declared the State enactments as null and void, they were wiped off the statute book and further amendment therein was simply not permissible to revive the same."Suffice it to observe that when voidness is a result of repugnancy between the State law and law made by the Parliament, that is, voidness under Article 254 of the Constitution, revival of such State law by enacting a subsequent amendment substantively changing the basis of the voidness and applying it retrospectively from a prior date is recognised time and again by this Court, as discussed above. We say no more.", the bench observed.No irreconcilability between the High Court judgment and the 2019 ActThe bench also held that there is no irreconcilability between the High Court judgment and the 2019 Act. The 2019 Act is an evolution, not reiteration of the earlier position much less regression thereof, it said. The bench observed:46. We may now consider the argument that the 2019 Act does not remove the defects found by the High Court and thus, lacks determinative principle thereby making it arbitrary. The 2019 Act is a conscious attempt by the State legislature to bring four material aspects of land acquisition under the three State enactments at par with the 2013 Act i.e., compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement and infrastructure facilities. No doubt, certain features of the stated law made by the Parliament have been left out, but that debate does not fall for our...

'Legitimate Legislative Exercise' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws Act 2019

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags