Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Introduction
The doctrine of the eminent domain gives power to the sovereign governments to compulsorily or
forcefully acquire the property of a person upon the fulfillment of three conditions.
1. The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978
2. The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997
3. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001
A report published by the Centre for Science and Environment, on RFCTLARR titled ‘Dilution by
Design’ showed that the major land acquisition in the state was done by the latter two laws. These
laws were based on the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and had many inadequacies. The state added in the
amendment that it would issue a notification, within the timeframe of a year, to extend provisions of
compensation and rehabilitation to acquisitions carried out according to the above-mentioned law, as
per the provisions of RFCTLARR. But, it never happened.
This amendment received presidential assent on January 1, 2015. After receiving the presidential
assent the Tamil Nadu state government started acquiring land according to their laws and in response
to it more than 240 writ petitions were filed in the Madras High Court challenging the revival of old
laws.
The petitioner argued that from the date January 1, 2014, the RFCTLARR came into force, all the
laws of the Tamil Nadu state government on a similar subject matter became repugnant under Article
254, and became void. This means that a subsequent amendment like that done by the Tamil Nadu
government by inserting Section 105-A in the Act will not be able to revive the state Acts which have
already become void. Even the Presidential assent to such an amendment will not protect the state
Acts.
The Court agreed with the arguments of the petitioner and followed the interpretation given by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v Mar Appraem Kuri Ltd (2012). Justice Subramonium
Prasad held, “The provisions of Article 254(2) would not apply in the case of a law already made by
the State, which has become repugnant as a result of a new enactment of Parliament. Article 254(2)
does not offer any protection to laws made by States before the Central Legislation, which leads them
to be repugnant, comes into force. It requires the entire repugnant law to be reserved for the
consideration of the President, afresh, and the President must give his consent to the entire law. This
law which otherwise would be repugnant is then specifically saved. These laws must receive his
assent in the present sense.”
1. The Act revived the operation of 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.
2. The Act came with a retrospective effect from September 26, 2013.
3. The provisions relating to compensation would be that of the RFCTLARR Act. Other than
this no other provision of the RFCTLARR Act would apply.
4. The Act also had a validation clause that exempted “any judgement, decree or order of
any court” except related to the determination of compensation from applying to the three
state laws from September 26, 2013, until the day the Act was notified.
The Act received the presidential assent on December 2, 2019. The Tamil Nadu government not only
brought a new Act to revive the three old Acts but also challenged the decision of the High Court in
the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, many landowners again reached the High Court against the new Tamil Nadu Land
Acquisition Act 2019. The High Court in its order in September 2020 clarified that the Supreme Court
has restrained the High Court from hearing any petition on this subject matter. Then the landowners
knocked on the doors of the apex court invoking Article 32.
The Indian Constitution sketches out a structure wherein all the three organs of a state i.e., executive,
legislative, and the judiciary all have an independent function. The legislature makes laws, the
executive enforces the law and the judiciary interprets the act as the guardian of the constitution.
There is a system of checks and balances which the people have adopted but in day-to-day
functioning, many times government institutions overstep each other. Similar contention has been
made in this case. To what extent can a law declared unconstitutional by the constitutional Court be
altered by the legislature to make it legitimate or reviving legislation, is a crucial question of this
case.
The land is an important resource for the development of a country. Similarly, the property rights of
an individual hold an important place in the hierarchy of rights.
1. The primary contention of the petitioners was that the 2019 Act of the Tamil Nadu
government to revive the old Acts, declared unconstitutional, was an attempt to nullify the
judgement of the Madras High Court. This act of the government was violative of the
doctrine of separation of power.
2. The High Court Judgement meant that the state legislature had to draft a new law
altogether and not just bring an Act to revive the old Acts declared void. Further added
that the moment an Act is declared unconstitutional there remains nothing to amend in it.
3. The 2019 Act of the government applies RFCTLARR provisions for compensation, but
not for social impact assessment, timelines for the various processes involved in
acquisition and provisions related to fair procedure therefore it is not curative legislation
but a foul under Article 254.
4. The petitioners also tried to explain that the retrospective effect of the Act is fatal for the
Act itself, emphasizing the word “made” used in Article 254, again making the 2019 Act
repugnant.
5. The last contention made by the petitioners was that the 2019 Act was violative of Article
14, Article 19 and Article 21 based on unreasonable classification and demanded the State
to explain under what special circumstances it was unable to implement Central
government laws and had to draft its laws.
Contentions of the Respondent
1. The 2019 Act was enacted under List III of the Seventh Schedule to revive the old Acts
and to obey the order of the High Court as the previous amendment by inserting section
105-A in RFCTLARR did not save the old Acts from becoming repugnant.
2. Further emphasis was laid on the state’s power to enact a law retrospectively and that the
2019 Act was to protect the interest of the landowners, public interest and the state
interest.
3. Also disagreeing with the judgement of the High Court, the respondents said that Article
254 does not make the entire Act repugnant but only some provisions of the Act.
Therefore, there is no need to re-enact a new law from scratch.
4. The 2019 Act is made following the High Court decisions and the defects pointed out by
the Court have been removed making it constitutional. Adding to it they said that the 2019
Act is independent in itself and should not be compared line by line to the RFCTLARR
Act.
1. Whether the State legislature had legislative competence to enact the 2019 Act, a
retrospective validating Act?
2. 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?
3. 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?
Observation
Legislative Competency
List III of the Seventh Schedule contains a list of subject matter upon which laws can be made by both
the state and the union government. In case of conflict between the two, the union law would prevail
as held by the Madras High Court while declaring the state Acts repugnant. Entry 42 of List III
contains “Acquisition and requisitions of property”. Using the same state they have made out their
laws like that of the Tamil Nadu government and the union government made 2013 Act.
After the High Court order, the Tamil Nadu legislature again used the same to revive the operations of
the state laws. Now, the question here is can such a law be brought retrospectively? The answer to
which will be yes, legislatures have the power to bring in a law retrospectively and it is well within
the bounds of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the legislature is the main protagonist
of the public interest. The legislature, therefore, is also given the power to validate an invalidated
law.
The Court quoted Ujagar Prints & Ors. (II) vs. Union of India & Ors (1989), “A competent
legislature can always validate a law that has been declared by courts to be invalid, provided the
infirmities and vitiating in factors noticed in the declaratory judgment are removed or cured. Such a
validating law can also be made retrospective… All that the legislature does is to usher in a valid law
with retrospective effect in the light of which earlier judgment becomes irrelevant.”
The legislature can make a retrospective law if it fulfills the conditions mentioned below:
1. The subject matter on which the law is made should be within the jurisdiction of the
legislature to make laws.
2. The retrospective clause should be mentioned. It should not be to overrule the judgement
of a court.
3. All the defects in the earlier law pointed out by the court must be removed or rectified in
the new law.
Does the 2019 Act nullify the judgement of the High Court?
The high court framed four issues while hearing the case of The Caritas India v Union of India
(2019). Here the question that arises is with the third issue regarding the revival of repugnant law. The
High Court has held that an amendment i.e, inserting Section 105-A in the RFCTLARR will not be
able to revive the repugnant law to do so the state legislature has to re-enact a law as per Article
254(2).
The Supreme Court observed that the concept of repugnancy is to remove the inconsistency between
the state and the union law. And Article 254 says that the law of union would prevail over the state
law, but it says that states can revive their law by receiving Presidential assent, as done in this case.
The Court held the contention given by the petitioner is untenable. And clarified that law is said to be
made on the date it receives Presidential assent under Article 111, Article 254, or Article
200 (Governor) and not from the date of its commencement.
Judgement
Two judges bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held that “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.” Leaving the question of
Article 14 open.
Conclusion
The RFCTLARR was bought at a time when there was anger among the landowners. Continuous
protests, violent clashes between the police and the landowners, and dozens of court cases had almost
halted all government’s major projects. The Act was introduced to appease the landowners but slowly
with time the state governments with their amendments and getting Presidential assent have diluted
the union law and we are again somewhere or the other following the colonial-era law.