Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old LA Act) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new LA Act) – Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 – Whether the Industrial Purposes Act and the Highways Act are void owing to inherent arbitrariness and infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution – In G. Mohan Rao, the Supreme Court observed that the contention, based on comparative analysis of the State Acts and the new LA Act, to establish violation of the equality clause u/Art. 14 of the Constitution, is left open – Parties were given liberty to raise all other issues not dealt with in that judgment – In C.A.Nos. 56925693 of 2021, it is contended that the High Court erred in holding that the Industrial Purposes Act was not liable to be invalidated on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution – The question arose was as to the locus standi of the appellants, who admittedly purchased their lands after the initiation of land acquisition proceedings, to maintain a challenge to the provisions of the Act of 1997 and the proceedings initiated thereunder – Whereas in C.A.No. 5697 of 2021, appellants have assailed the common order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the High Court, whereby challenge to the validity of the Highways Act, on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, was rejected – The grievance of these two persons is with regard to the acquisition of their lands by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Highways Act – It is contended that the Highway Act, 2001 is liable liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Held: In C.A.Nos, 5692-5693 of 2021, they were subsequent purchasers and deemed to aware of the acquisition proceedings – In any event, neither of these subsequent purchasers can be permitted to claim ignorance of the acquisition proceedings – Mere passage of time and publication of the s.3(1) Notice after their purchase of the lands would not save their sale transactions or vest them with a right to attack the acquisition – In consequence, no reason to entertain their challenge to the Industrial Purposes Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution or their consequential challenge to the acquisition proceedings – As far as C.A.No. 5697 of 2021 is concerned, the Highways Act in the State of Tamil Nadu stood protected even at the time the old LA Act was in force and effect, owing to the Presidential assent that it had received u/Art. 254(2) of the Constitution, and it continued to operate and provide altogether different yardsticks for acquisition of land and payment of compensation till the advent of the new LA Act – No doubt, the scheme of the new LA Act advocates timely measures being adopted in implementation of the acquisition and such general temporal restrictions would benefit the land owners, but the absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act may not be reason enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on which the Highways Acts was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to cut down on time-consuming processes.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 5692-5693 of 2021
1. The question that would arise is as to the locus standi of the appellants, who admittedly purchased their lands after the initiation of land acquisition proceedings, to maintain a challenge to the provisions of the Industrial Purposes Act and the proceedings initiated thereunder. [Para 18][951-F-G]
2. As regards the issue of the appellants’ locus standi, that very aspect was considered by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar and another Vs. Union of India and others [(2019) 10 SCC 229]. The question therein was whether subsequent purchasers of acquired land would be entitled to seek invalidation of the acquisition on the ground of delay under Section 24(2) of the new LA Act. The Bench held that a sale transaction, effected after the Notification under Section 4 of the old LA Act, is void and would be ineffective to transfer the land and such a sale would not clothe the subsequent purchasers with title, whereby they could claim to be in possession. It was observed that it would be profoundly unfair and unjust and against the policy of law to permit such a purchaser to claim resettlement or claim the land back, as envisaged under the new LA Act. [Para 22][953-A-C]
2. As both appellants seek to assail the validity of the Industrial Purposes Act only in the context of the acquisition proceedings initiated thereunder in relation to the lands purchased by them after issuance of the Public Notice under Section 3(2) thereof, viz., the equivalent of a Notification under Section 4 of the old LA Act, their challenge is tainted and unacceptable in its very inception. They were both subsequent purchasers and are deemed to be aware of the acquisition proceedings. In that regard, it may also be noted that the original owners of the subject lands raised their objections in response to the Public Notice issued under Section 3(2) in the year 2007, but chose to sell their lands in 2012 and 2013. In any event, neither of these subsequent purchasers can be permitted to claim ignorance of the acquisition proceedings. In effect, the very sale transactions under which they claim title and interest in the subject lands are rendered void in the eye of law. Mere passage of time and publication of the Section 3(1) Notice after their purchase of the lands would not save their sale transactions or vest them with a right to attack the acquisition. In consequence, this Court finds no reason to entertain their challenge to the Industrial Purposes Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution or their consequential challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Civil Appeal Nos. 56925693 of 2021 are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this short ground. [Para 23][953-F-H; 954-A-C]
Civil Appeal No.5697 of 2021
3. The Highways Act in the State of Tamil Nadu stood protected even at the time the old LA Act was in force and effect, owing to the Presidential assent that it had received under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, and it continued to operate and provide altogether different yardsticks for acquisition of land and payment of compensation till the advent of the new LA Act. [Para 40][961E-F]
4. No doubt, the scheme of the new LA Act advocates timely measures being adopted in implementation of the acquisition and such general temporal restrictions would benefit the land owners, but the absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act may not be reason enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on which the Highways Acts was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to cut down on time-consuming processes. In G. Mohan Rao , this Court had noted that the letter dated 25.07.2019 written by the State of Tamil Nadu, for obtaining the assent of the President of India for the Validation Act of 2019, specifically emphasized that the three State Acts were made for the purpose of speedy acquisitions but the new LA Act rendered them repugnant. Therefore, it is not the intendment or purpose of the Highways Act that the processes for acquisition of land thereunder should be protracted or be ridden by avoidable delays. [Para 42][962-DF]
5. Further, there is no possibility of the State of Tamil Nadu exercising arbitrary discretion in adopting one legislation or the other for the purpose of acquiring lands, as contended by the learned counsel. Sections 3, 7 and 11 of the Validation Act of 2019 expressly exclude the operation of the new LA Act for the purposes contained in the State Acts which stood revived owing to the assent of the President of India. Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu would be bound to apply only the Highways Act for acquiring lands for the purposes reserved thereunder. [Para 44][963-B]
6. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. [Para 45][963-C-D]
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar AIR 1954 SC 493 : [1955] SCR 599; P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras and Others AIR 1965 SC 1017 : [1965] SCR 614 – followed.
G. Mohan Rao and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others AIR 2021 SC 3126; – relied on.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. Ananthi Ammal and Others (1995) 1 SCC 519 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 666; K. Ramakrishnan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu 2007 WLR 372; S.N. Sumathy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 2015 SCC OnLine Madras 14055; Sri
Venkateswara Educational and Charitable Trust v. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Writ Appeal No. 1063 of 2012, decided on 17.10.2022; Shiv Kumar and Another v. Union of India and Others (2019)
10 SCC 229; UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow, and Another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (1996) 3 SCC 124 : [1996] 1 SCR 683; Sneh Prabha and Others v. State of UP and Another (1996) 7 SCC 426 : [1995] 5 Suppl. SCR 264; Union of India v. Shivkumar Bhargava and Others (1995) 2 SCC 427 : [1995] 1 SCR 354; Meera Sahni v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008] 10 SCR 1012; V. Chandrasekaran and Another v. Administrative Officer and Others (2012) 12 SCC
133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603; Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Co-op. Housing Society, Jaipur (2013) 5 SCC
427 : [2013] 4 SCR 978; M. Venkatesh and Others v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015)
17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Nagpur Improvement Trust and Others v. Vithal Rao and Others AIR 1973 SC 689 : [1973] 3 SCR 39; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and Others (2019) 9 SCC 304 : [2019] 13 SCR 49; Savitri Cairae and Others v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others (2003) 6 SCC 39; Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765; State of Kerala and Others v. T.M. Peter and Others (1980) 3 SCC 554 : [1980] 3 SCR 290; State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) 4 SCC 471 : [1978] 1 SCR 641; Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sarma AIR 1968 SC 394 : [1968] SCR 561; Javed and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2003) 8 SCC 369 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 947; U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Another (1998) 2 SCC 467 : [1998] 1 SCR 254 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.