i

BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

NEW DELHI

CASE CONCERING CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF

AN ACT IN LIGHT OF
REPUGNANCY

K.T. PLANTATION Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. APPELLANTS

v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & Ors. RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

SHARDUL V SINGH

ROLL NO. 140

SEMESTER IV, SECTION B

B.A. LLB,(Hons.)
 ii

TABLE OF CONTENT
List of Abbreviations iii

Index of Authorities iv

List of Cases v

Statement of Jurisdiction vi

Statement of Facts vii

Issues Raised ix

Summary of Arguments x

Written Pleadings 1

Prayer for Relief 4

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. & And
2. % per cent
3. AIR All India Reporter
4. Art. Article
5. Ed. Edition
6. i.e. That is
7. No. Number
8. Ors. Others
9. p. Page
10. SC Supreme Court
11.v. Versus
 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statute:

• The Constitution of India, 1950, Article(s) 133 & 254.

• The Constitution of India, 1950, Schedule 7 List II Entry 18 & List III Entry 42.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Books:

• Constitution of India, 1950 (Bare Act), Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
• V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company, 12th Ed.
• M.P. Jain, Indian Constitution Law, LexisNexis, 7th Ed.
 5

LIST OF CASES
1. Premnath v. State of J&K, AIR 1959 SC 749.
2. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 45.
3. Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 648.
4. R. v. Brisbane Licencing Court, (1920) 28 CLR 23.
5. T.S. Baliah v. ITO, AIR 1969 SC 701.
6. Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v.National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and
Ors. AIR 2002 SC 3404.
7. Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1394.
 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants have approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 133 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
 vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Dr. Roerich and Mrs. Devika Rani Roerich had owned an Estate called Tatgunni
Estate covering 470.19 acres at B.M. Kaval Village of Kengeri Hobli and Manvarthe Kaval
Village of Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

2. Dr. Roerich, had sold 141.25 acres (which included 100 acres granted by the Government for
Linaloe cultivation) to M/s K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd. (the first Appellant herein, in short 'the
Company') by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 23.3.91 for a sale consideration of Rs.
56,65,000/-. It was stated that Mrs. Devika Rani Roerich had also sold an extent of 223 acres
30 guntas to the Company on 16.2.1992 for a sale consideration of Rs. 89,25,000/- by way of
an unregistered sale deed, a transaction disputed by Mrs. Devika Rani. The Company,
however, preferred a suit OS 122/92 for a declaration of title and injunction in respect of that
land before the District and Civil Judge, Bangalore which is pending consideration.

3. Dr. Roerich and Mrs. Devika Rani had no issue and due to old age and other ailments it was
reported that they were staying at Hotel Ashok, Bangalore for a couple of years before their
death. It was alleged that some of the persons who were associated with the couple, had an
eye on their properties, including the land used for linaloe cultivation, valuable
paintings, jewellery, artefacts etc., and began to create documents to grab those properties.

4. The Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka noticing the above facts and
circumstances convened a meeting on 1.4.92 in the presence of the Director of
Archaeology to take effective and proper steps to preserve the paintings, artefacts and
other valuables. For that purpose, they met Smt. Devika Rani and Dr. Roerich on 03.04.92
and a letter was handed over to Dr. Roerich on behalf of the State Government
expressing the Government's willingness to purchase the paintings and other valuables so as
to set up a Roerich Gallery. The State Cabinet in its meeting held on 09.04.92 also
discussed about the desirability of acquiring the landed properties of Roerichs and also
for setting up an Art Gallery-cum- Museum, in public interest. Following that meeting, the
Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Ordinance, 1992 was
drafted, but could not be issued.
 8

5. However, the ordinance was returned by the Government of India informing that it had no
objection to introduce legislation as a bill and hence the same with requisite amendments was
placed before the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. The Acquisition
Act was then passed and subsequently got the assent of the President on 15.11.96 and
was brought into force on 21.11.1996.

6. The Company, through its Managing Director, filed Writ Petition No. 32560 of 1996 before
the Karnataka High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Acquisition Act being
repugnant to Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court
upholding the validity of the Acquisition Act.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Karnataka High Court the Company has come up before
this Hon’ble Court.
 9

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the impugned Act— Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition
and Transfer) Act, 1996 is constitutionally invalid being repugnant to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and should be struck down?
 1
0

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the impugned Act— Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and
Transfer) Act, 1996 is constitutionally invalid being repugnant to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and should be struck down?

The impugned Act i.e. Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and
Transfer) Act, 1996 is constitutionally invalid as it is repugnant to the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer)
Act, 1996 is a State Legislature Act and is in direct conflict with the Land Acquisition Act 1894
which is an Act passed by the Central Legislature. The two Acts being repugnant under Art.
254 the Central Legislation should prevail over the State Legislation and as a result the
State Legislation— The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and
Transfer) Act,
1996, should be declared invalid and struck down.
 1

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1. The impugned Act— Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition
and Transfer) Act, 1996 is constitutionally invalid being repugnant to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and should be struck down.

The impugned Act— Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act,
19961 is constitutionally invalid being repugnant to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and should be struck down. Article 254 provides for the occurrence of repugnancy between the
State Act and the Centre Act. For two Acts to be repugnant under Art. 254 the Acts should deal
with one matter enumerated under Concurrent List.2Further in case of repugnancy the law made
by Parliament shall prevail over the law made by the State Legislature.3

In the case of Premnath v. State of J&K4, the Supreme Court said that:

The essential condition for the application of Article 254(1) is that the
existing law must be with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List. In other words, unless it is shown that the repugnancy is between
the provisions of a subsequent and those of an existing law in respect of the
specified matters, the Article would be inapplicable...

Further in case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar,5the Supreme Court held that:

The question of repugnancy under Article 254(1) between a law made by

Parliament and a law made by the State Legislature arises only in case both the
legislations occupy the same field with respect to the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List, and there is a direct conflict between the two laws.

6
Similar ratio decidendi was held in cases of Deep Chand v. State of U.P., R. v.
Brisbane
Licencing Court,7 T.S. Baliah v. ITO8 and in various other cases.

1
Hereafter referred as the State Acquisition Act.
2
List III, Schedule 7.
3
Article 254, the Constitution of India, 1950.
4 AIR 1959 SC 749.
5
(1983) 4 SCC 45.
 2

It is humbly submitted that in the present case the two Acts i.e. Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich
Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act 1996 and Land Acquisition Act 1894, both deal with the
same matter i.e. Entry 42 List III9 and thus the said two acts are inconsistent with each other.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the two Acts are repugnant and the Land Acquisition Act
being the law made by Parliament should prevail over the State Acquisition Act.

Further it is submitted that the impugned Act is ex-facie repugnant to the provisions of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and hence void under Article 254(1) due to want of Presidential
assent on repugnancy. It is further submitted that the procedure and the principle for the
acquisition of land as well as determination of compensation, etc., under both the Acts are
contrary to each other making the two acts in direct conflict and hence the impugned Act
can be saved only if Presidential assent is obtained under Article 254(2) of the constitution
which has been obtained under the present case.

Although the assent of the President has been taken in this present case it is submitted that the
assent was not taken in connection with the repugnancy. For this we can rely on the letter dated
20.09.1996 that the State of Karnataka had sought the assent of the President only for the specific
purpose of Clause(a) of Clause (1) of Article 31A of the Constitution and not for any
other purpose and the assent was given only in response to the said proposal of the State
Government and there had never been any proposal pointing out the repugnancy between the
impugned Act and the Land Acquisition Act and hence the impugned Act is void of ex-
facie repugnancy between provisions of the existing Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the
impugned Act.

In the case of Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v.National Textile Corporation
(Maharashtra
North) Ltd. and Ors.10 it was held that
“Reservation for consideration is not an empty formality- Pointed attention of the president is
required to be drawn to the repugnancy between the earlier law made by the parliament and the

6
AIR 1959 SC 648.
7
(1920) 28 CLR 23.
8
AIR 1969 SC 701.
9 Acquisition and requisitioning of property.
10
AIR 2002 SC 3404.
 3

contemplated state legislation and the reasons for having such law despite the enactment by the
parliament.”

Therefore, it is submitted that in the instant case the attention of the President was not drawn
towards the issue of repugnancy and mere formality of assent was complied with by the
Karnataka Legislature which is not a good assent at all.

Similarly, in the case of Gram Panchayat of Village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and Ors.11 it
was held by the Apex Court that the “President shall give his assent to Law for specific purpose
but efficacy of assent is limited to that purpose only.”

It is humbly put forward that in the instant case the President assented only for the
specific purpose of Clause(a) of Clause (1) of Article 31A of the Constitution and not for
any other purpose and the assent was given only in response to the said proposal of the State
Government and there had never been any proposal pointing out the repugnancy between the
impugned Act and the Land Acquisition Act. Thus the efficacy of the assent cannot be
applied to the repugnancy and the laws stand repugnant and the State Acquisition Act hence
should be declared to be invalid.

For a repugnancy to occur between two laws certain test needs to be fulfilled. This test
was summarised by Justice Subbarao in the case of Deep Chand v. State of UP12as follows:
1. Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; and
2. Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy
the same field.

It is therefore, humbly submitted that in the present case the two laws are in direct conflict and
both laws occupy the same field i.e. entry 42 of the Concurrent List. The provisions of the two
laws are inconsistent to each other.

11
AIR 1985 SC 1394.
12
AIR 1959 SC 648.
 4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the lights of facts states, authorities cited and arguments advanced the respondents
humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. The judgement of the High Court of Karnataka may be set aside and reversed.
2. The Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996
is constitutionally invalid.
3. The said Act is struck down.

And pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interests of equity, justice
and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS APRIL 6, 2018

SHARDUL VIKRAM SINGH