Summary
The Court rejected the constitutional challenges to Tamil Nadu’s special land-acquisition laws. Purchasers who acquired land after the industrial-acquisition public notice lacked standing for their challenge. The Highways Act was not invalid merely because its procedure differed from the central 2013 Act, given the legislative framework and presidential assent. Challenges to individual acquisitions and compensation remained for pending High Court proceedings. All appeals were dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
Issues
- Whether purchasers after an acquisition public notice could challenge the Industrial Purposes Act and consequential acquisition.
- Whether procedural and compensation differences from the 2013 central Act invalidated the Tamil Nadu Highways Act under Article 14.
- Whether the validation framework permitted arbitrary choice between the central and State acquisition regimes.
- Which individual acquisition and compensation questions remained open.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 254(2), Constitution of IndiaThe Highways Act could not be invalidated merely through comparison with the distinct central enactment. Presidential assent protected the revived repugnant State regime; differences between enactments from different legislative sources did not establish the comparative discrimination alleged. (¶¶ 12, 14, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45)
- Sections 3 and 4, Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997The purchasers bought after the section 3(2) public notice. Its role was equivalent to the preliminary notification under the old central Act; later publication under section 3(1), though relevant to vesting, did not cure their lack of standing to bring the present statutory challenge. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 22, 23)
- Sections 3, 7, 10 and 11, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019The revival framework applies specified compensation, rehabilitation and infrastructure schedules of the 2013 Act while excluding that Act otherwise for the designated State-law purposes. Acquisition for Highways Act purposes must proceed under that Act, preventing the arbitrary choice alleged. (¶¶ 12, 14, 25, 34, 40, 41, 44)
Held
- After G. Mohan Rao upheld the 2019 validation legislation, the challenges to the earlier amendment and section 105-A required no further adjudication; the two corresponding appeals were infructuous. The remaining question concerned arbitrariness and Article 14 challenges to the Industrial Purposes and Highways Acts. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- The industrial-land appellants purchased years after the public acquisition notice, in circumstances where the original owners had objected to acquisition. They were deemed aware of the proceedings and their transactions supplied no enforceable title or standing for this attack. Mere delay and the later vesting notification did not save the transactions or entitle them to mount the statutory and consequential challenge. Those appeals failed on maintainability, without determination of that Act’s validity on the asserted merits. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26)
- The Highways Act challenge could not succeed merely by contrasting its provisions with the central 2013 Act. The Court applied the principle concerning different legislative sources and the protection of the revived State law under Article 254(2). It distinguished authorities involving materially different statutory arrangements rather than treating every difference in acquisition law as unconstitutional discrimination. (¶¶ 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 45)
- Omission of the central Act’s social-impact process and temporal safeguards did not by itself invalidate the Highways Act, enacted for speedy acquisition. Even the central Act permits specified extensions. Particular delay or arbitrary protraction may call for relief on individual facts, but a stray instance cannot alone establish facial invalidity of the legislation. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43)
- The State had no unrestricted choice to acquire for the same designated purpose under either regime. Sections 3, 7 and 11 of the 2019 Act exclude the central Act, subject to the validation legislation’s express provisions, and require the corresponding revived State law to be used. The alleged discretionary selection between two regimes therefore supplied no ground for invalidation. (¶¶ 25, 44)
- Individual acquisition challenges, compensation quantification and related factual issues were left for the pending High Court petitions. The highway petitioners’ cases were to be decided on their own merits without reference to this limited constitutional adjudication. The appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs. (¶¶ 21, 43, 45)
Result
Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. Industrial-law challenge rejected for lack of standing, earlier-amendment appeals infructuous, and comparative Article 14 attack on Highways Act rejected. Individual acquisition and compensation issues left to pending proceedings.