NDLI: G. Mohan Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Amendment and Validation) Act Constitution of India. Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation 2019
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019: Constitutional validity of – Held: 2019 Act is a legitimate legislative exercise and is consistent with and within the four corners of Art.254 – Constitution of India. Enactment of the 2019 Act by the State legislature – Legislative competence of – State legislature enacted three State land acquisition statutes-the 1978 Act, the 1997 Act and the 2001 Act – Union legislature thereafter enacted the 2013 Act for land acquisition across the country – Repugnancy between the Union and State enactments – In view thereof, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 was effected to the 2013 Act whereby s. 105-A inserted in the 2013 Act, making the provisions of the 2013 Act inapplicable to acquisition of land under the three State enactments – Thereafter, the 2014 Act, along with the 1997 Act and 2001 Act, challenged before the High Court on the grounds of repugnancy with the 2013 Act and violation of Article 14 – High Court struck down and declared all three State laws to be void for repugnancy and set aside all land acquisitions thereunder post coming into effect of the 2013 Act – To protect the nullified State enactments, the State legislature brought the 2019 Act – 2019 Act 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 – State legislature enacting the 2019 Act, if transgressed the limits of its legislative competence having the effect of nullifying/overruling the judgment of the High Court – Held: Legislative intent behind the 2019 Act and more particularly, the assent accorded thereto by the Governor and the President of India for overcoming repugnancy with the Act made by the Parliament, was to revive the operation of the State enactments declared as null and void being unconstitutional and repugnant to the Act made by the Parliament and to amend the same, as well as, validate the actions already taken by the State authorities – Concerned constitutional bodies understood the substance of what is placed before them – Concern is with the substance of the legislature and not its form – 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-compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement and infrastructure facilities – Effect of the 2019 Act is to change the law retrospectively and not to overrule the judgment of the Court – There is no irreconcilability between the High Court judgment and the 2019 Act – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 – Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Constitution of India – Art. 254. Retrospective commencement of date of 2019 Act – Effect of – Held: A law is said to be made on the day it obtains Presidential assent u/Art. 111 or u/Art. 254 or of Governor u/Art. 200 – Commencement of law, unlike making of law, is not a part of the legislative process – For checking repugnancy, the relevant point of time would be the date of assent and not date of commencement – It may appear anomalous to operationalise the 2019 Act from 26.09.2013, a day prior to the making of the 2013 Act, but it does not make any impact on the validity thereof or its substance – Date has been chosen by the State legislature only by way of abundant caution and, rightly – It is relevant to overcome the repugnancy corresponding to the commencement of the 2013 Act – Adopting any other interpretation would not only be unwarranted but would also strike at the very purpose of a retrospective reviving and validating enactment – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013– Constitution of India – Art. 254. Presidential assent u/Art. 254(2) – Requirement of – Plea that that the actual repugnancy was not pointed out to the President while obtaining assent and thus, requirements of Art.254(2) unfilled – Held: Letter written by the State Government seeking presidential assent clearly demonstrates the communication was in compliance with the mandate of Art. 254 – Constitution of India – Art. 254. Retrospective operation: Retrospective operation of a statute – Concept of – Held: Retrospectivity is to cure including validate certain transactions of the past by making a law in the present and not to compete with the laws existing in the past at that point of time. Enactment of a retrospective validating Act – Legislative competence of the State legislature – Held: When voidness is a result of repugnancy between the State law and law made by the Parliament, the State legislature can revive of such State law by enacting a subsequent amendment substantively changing the basis of the voidness and applying it retrospectively from a prior date. Constitution of India:Art. 254 – Concept of repugnancy and its functioning under – Explained.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 311
Petitioner	G. Mohan Rao & Ors.
Respondent	State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
SCR	[2021] 6 S.C.R. 281
Judgement Date	2021-06-29
Case Number	1411

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

G. Mohan Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

M. Mohan Vs. The State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

K. Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

A. Peeriakaruppan, Etc Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Public Union of Civil Liberties Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Veeramani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Devender Kumar Tyagi and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

M.c. Mehta Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

R. Rajagopal@ R.r. Gopal and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

A. Hamsaveni and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

G. Mohan Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

G. Mohan Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M. Mohan Vs. The State Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

K. Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

A. Peeriakaruppan, Etc Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Public Union of Civil Liberties Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Veeramani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Devender Kumar Tyagi and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

M.c. Mehta Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

R. Rajagopal@ R.r. Gopal and Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

A. Hamsaveni and Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

G. Mohan Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.