Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws: C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 9, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 510
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Kumar, J.
Can State laws for land acquisition, which are different from the central law, be valid? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition in Tamil Nadu. The Court examined whether the Tamil Nadu state laws for acquiring land for industrial purposes and highways were valid, even though they differed from the central law. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, with Justice Sanjay Kumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The State of Tamil Nadu enacted three laws to acquire land: 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. These laws were different from the central Land Acquisition Act, 1894. To protect these laws, the State obtained Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. However, when the central Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new LA Act) replaced the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, these state laws became void due to their inconsistency. In response, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly amended the new LA Act by inserting Section 105-A, which aimed to exempt the state laws from the new LA Act. This amendment was passed as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.1 of 2015), with retrospective effect from January 1, 2014.

Several writ petitions were filed in the Madras High Court challenging Act No.1 of 2015 and the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The petitioners, including C.S. Gopalakrishnan and V. Thirunarayanan, sought to prevent the acquisition of their lands under these state laws. The Madras High Court partly allowed these petitions, declaring the state laws void, but did not reopen acquisitions where the land had already been used.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Madras High Court considered several writ petitions challenging the validity of the Tamil Nadu land acquisition laws. The High Court framed four key issues: (1) whether the state laws were inherently arbitrary, (2) whether the President failed to apply his mind while granting assent to Section 105-A, (3) whether the state laws became repugnant after the new LA Act was enacted, and (4) whether the provisions of Section 105-A(2) and (3) were mandatory. The High Court ruled that the state laws were not arbitrary, the President had applied his mind, and the state laws became void after the new LA Act. However, it held that Section 105-A did not revive the state laws. The High Court did not reopen acquisitions where the land was already in use. Appeals were then filed before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the State Legislatures. Article 254(1) states that if a State law is repugnant to a Central law, the Central law will prevail. However, Article 254(2) provides an exception: If a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List (where both the Centre and States can legislate) has been reserved for the President’s consideration and has received his assent, it will prevail in that State, despite being repugnant to a Central law. The new LA Act was enacted by the Parliament, while the Tamil Nadu Acts were enacted by the State Legislature. The Tamil Nadu government attempted to revive the state laws by amending the central act and obtaining Presidential assent.

The relevant provisions are:

• Article 254 of the Constitution of India: Deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the State Legislatures.
• Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Specifies that the Act does not apply to certain Central Government enactments.
• Section 105-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: (Inserted by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2014) Made the provisions of the Act inapplicable or applicable with modifications to the Acts relating to land acquisition in the State of Tamil Nadu, which were specified in the newly added Fifth Schedule.
• The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978: A state law for acquiring land for Harijan welfare schemes.
• The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997: A state law for acquiring land for industrial purposes.
• The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001: A state law for acquiring land for highways.
• Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997: States that the Government may acquire any land required for any industrial purpose, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, by publishing a Notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, specifying the particular purpose for which the land is required.
• Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997: The Government would cause a Public Notice to be given, calling upon the owner of the land and any other person, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land, to show-cause, within such time as may be specified in the Public Notice, why the land should not be acquired.
• Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997: States that the land would vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances, on and from the date of publication of the Notice under Section 3(1).
• Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001: Similar to Section 3(1) of the Industrial Purposes Act, allowing the government to acquire land for highway purposes.
• Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001: Similar to Section 3(2) of the Industrial Purposes Act, calling for objections to land acquisition.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (C.S. Gopalakrishnan, V. Thirunarayanan, K.M. Vittal Babu, and T. Chinnappan):

• ✓ The Tamil Nadu land acquisition laws (Industrial Purposes Act and Highways Act) are inherently arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution because they do not provide the same safeguards as the new LA Act.
• ✓ The state laws do not have timelines for completing the acquisition process, unlike the new LA Act, which can lead to delays and unfair compensation.
• ✓ There is no intelligible differentia between landowners whose lands are acquired under the Highways Act and those whose lands are acquired under the new LA Act. Both should receive the same compensation.
• ✓ The Validation Act of 2019 selectively applies provisions of the new LA Act, leading to discrimination in compensation.
• ✓ The market value of land is determined based on a distant past date, which is detrimental to the landowners.
• ✓ The power given to the Collector under Section 28(7) of the new LA Act to consider other grounds for equity is not available under the Highways Act.
• ✓ Safeguards provided in the new LA Act, such as additional compensation for multiple displacements under Section 39, are not available in the Highways Act.
• ✓ The appellants, who purchased land after the initial public notice but before the final vesting notice, should have the right to challenge the acquisition. Any reasonable person would believe that acquisition proceedings would lapse after a long delay.
• ✓ The state cannot freeze property rights for years by issuing a public notice and then forgetting about it.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Tamil Nadu):

• ✓ The state laws were protected by Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.
• ✓ Subsequent purchasers of land have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
• ✓ The timelines in the new LA Act are not sacrosanct, as they can be extended, and therefore, there is no real difference with the state laws.
• ✓ The question of comparing the Highways Act with the new LA Act does not arise, as the Highways Act is protected by Presidential assent.
• ✓ The Validation Act of 2019 cures any repugnancy between the state laws and the central law.
• ✓ The state laws were enacted for speedy acquisition, and therefore, the absence of timelines is justified.
• ✓ There is no arbitrary discretion in adopting one legislation over the other, as the Validation Act of 2019 mandates the use of the state laws for the purposes specified therein.
• ✓ The state laws were enacted for speedy acquisition, and therefore, the absence of timelines is justified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reframed the issue as to whether the Industrial Purposes Act and the Highways Act are void due to inherent arbitrariness and infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ The Supreme Court followed State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and others [(1995) 1 SCC 519]*, which upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed K. Ramakrishnan Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu [2007 WLR 372]*, which upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed S.N. Sumathy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [2015 SCC OnLine Madras 14055]*, which upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed Shiv Kumar and another Vs. Union of India and others [(2019) 10 SCC 229]*, which held that subsequent purchasers of acquired land cannot seek invalidation of the acquisition.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed UP Jal Nigam, Lucknow, and another Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. [(1996) 3 SCC 124]*, Meera Sahni Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others [(2008) 9 SCC 177]*, and V. Chandrasekaran and another Vs. Administrative Officer and others [(2012) 12 SCC 133]*, which held that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition and is only entitled to compensation.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.C. Mandawar [AIR 1954 SC 493]*, which held that Article 14 does not authorize striking down a law of one state by comparing it with the law of another state or the Centre.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed State of Karnataka Vs. Ranganatha Reddy [(1977) 4 SCC 471]*, which held that a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List would stand protected after it receives the assent of the President under Article 254(2).
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed Javed and others Vs. State of Haryana and others [(2003) 8 SCC 369]*, which held that it is not permissible to compare a piece of legislation enacted by a State with the provisions of another law enacted by the Parliament.
• ✓ The Supreme Court followed State of Kerala and others Vs. T.M. Peter and others [(1980) 3 SCC 554]*, which held that timelines in the new LA Act are not sacrosanct.
• ✓ The Supreme Court distinguished P. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Madras and others [AIR 1965 SC 1017]*, Nagpur Improvement Trust and others Vs. Vithal Rao and others [AIR 1973 SC 689]*, Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and others [(2019) 9 SCC 304]*, Savitri Cairae and others Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others [(2003) 6 SCC 39]*, and Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India [(2019) 3 SCC 39]* on the ground that they did not involve Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
• ✓ The Supreme Court distinguished U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam and another [(1998) 2 SCC 467]* on the ground that the court interpreted the state law to incorporate amendments of the central law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the constitutional protection afforded to state laws under Article 254(2) when they receive Presidential assent. The Court emphasized that once a state law is validated by the President, it cannot be invalidated on the grounds of repugnancy with a central law or on the basis of Article 14. The Court also highlighted the fact that the state laws were enacted for speedy acquisition of land, and therefore, the absence of strict timelines was not a sufficient ground to invalidate them. The Court also considered the fact that subsequent purchasers of land cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, as they are deemed to be aware of the existing proceedings.

The Court noted that:

• ✓ The very foundation of Article 254(2) is that a State enactment runs contra to the provisions of a Central legislation, but it stands protected after receiving Presidential assent.
• ✓ Comparing two laws for the purpose of Article 14 would be like comparing “chalk with cheese,” i.e., two essentially unequal entities.
• ✓ The sources of authority for the two statutes being different, Article 14 can have no application.
• ✓ Repugnancy between a State Act and a Central Legislation would stand cured if the State Act receives the assent of the President under Article 254(2).
• ✓ It is not permissible to compare a piece of legislation enacted by a State with the provisions of another law enacted by the Parliament.
• ✓ The purpose of Article 254(2) is to resuscitate and operationalize a repugnant Act.
• ✓ The State Acts were made for the purpose of speedy acquisitions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that once a State law on a subject in the Concurrent List receives the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, it cannot be invalidated on the grounds of repugnancy with a Central law or on the basis of Article 14. The Court also held that subsequent purchasers of land have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made the following observations:

• ✓ Timelines in the new LA Act are not sacrosanct and can be extended.
• ✓ The purpose of Article 254(2) is to resuscitate and operationalize a repugnant Act.
• ✓ The State Acts were made for the purpose of speedy acquisitions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2023) upheld the validity of the Tamil Nadu land acquisition laws, emphasizing the constitutional protection afforded to state laws under Article 254(2) when they receive Presidential assent. The Court rejected the arguments that the state laws were arbitrary or violated Article 14, and it also held that subsequent purchasers of land have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. This judgment provides clarity on the scope and application of Article 254 of the Constitution and reinforces the power of the State Legislatures to enact laws on subjects in the Concurrent List, provided they receive Presidential assent.