SC Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act 2019

BACKGROUND

• Tamil Nadu Government had enacted the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, and Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
• To protect the above-mentioned Acts, the Government in 2014, amended the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act which came into effect after Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was found inadequate and Section 105-A was inserted into the 2013 Act.
• The Amendment to 2013 Act was challenged before the Madras High Court and it was declared by the court that it was repugnant to the 2013 Act and hence cannot reactivate the 1978, 1997, and 2001 Acts and it struck down Section 105-A was inserted to 2013 Act.
• The Government then tried to revive the 1978, 1997, and 2001 Acts which were made unconstitutional by the High Court. The Government enacted The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment, and Validation) Act, 2019, and was applicable retrospectively from 2013.

PETITIONER’S CASE

• The petitioners, whose lands faced acquisition, submitted before the Court that the 2019 Act was violative of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 which was passed by the Centre.
• Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the petitioners also stated that the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment, and Validation) Act, 2019 was an attempt to overrule and nullify Madras High Court’s order of 2019.

ORDER

• The Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar rejected the plea of the petitioner challenging the Act and upheld the constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 and made the following observations.
• The Court observed that according to Article 254(2) of the Constitution, where the state law is in contradiction with the central law, the state law shall prevail provided it was passed after receiving presidential assent.
• The Court also opined that the challenged Act was not in contradiction with the High Court judgement of 2019 as it was a new Act and not a repetition of the old enactments.
• It also noted that the power of the legislature to legislate retrospectively was well within the constitutional boundaries.

What do you think of this case?