In C.A. Nos. 5692-5695 OF 2021-SC- Very premise on which Highways Act was enacted by State of Tamil Nadu was to cut down on time-consuming processes: Apex Court dismisses appeals challenging constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001
Justices Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjay Kumar [09-05-2023]

Read Judgment: C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 10, 2023:  While upholding the validity of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the Supreme Court has opined that the Act 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.

 The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the attack launched against the Highways Act on the strength of the so-called disparity and discrimination in the norms and procedures prescribed therein when compared with the new LA Act.

The factual background of this case was such that the State of Tamil Nadu chose to exercise its right of eminent domain to acquire land for its harijan welfare schemes, its industrial purposes and its highways by deviating from the prescribed law stated in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and 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.

However, upon the Parliament promulgating the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new LA Act) replacing the old LA Act, these State Acts were rendered void being repugnant thereto. In consequence, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.1 of 2015), came into force with retrospective effect from January 1, 2014.

The Amendment Act was subjected to challenge before the Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions. One of those also raised a challenge to the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Highways Act). On the same lines, other Writ Petitions assailed the validity of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Purposes Act on the ground that it was ultra vires the Constitution of India and seeking a consequential direction to the authorities to drop the acquisition of the petitioners’ lands thereunder.

In other writ petitions, the petitioners sought a direction to the authorities not to acquire their lands & return them. Further, the petitioners sought a declaration that the Amendment Act was ultra vires the Constitution. These writ petitions were partly allowed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court.

The gravamen of the attack in one of the appeals was that the Madras 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. 

Noting that two of the petitioners were subsequent purchasers and were deemed to be aware of the acquisition proceedings, the Bench opined that their challenge was tainted and unacceptable in its very inception as they were assailing 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.

"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", the Bench said while finding  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. 

The Highways Act was stated to be discriminatory, both with regard to determination of compensation as well as the acquisition procedure. The petitioners had contended that there was no intelligible differentia between land owners whose lands were acquired under the Highways Act and those whose lands were acquired under the new LA Act and it would amount to an unreasonable classification if they are denied compensation on the same terms, when their lands are acquired for public purposes. 

“The very foundation and basis of Article 254(2) of the Constitution is that a particular State enactment runs contra to the provisions of a Central legislation on the same subject, but despite the same it would stand protected after it receives the assent of the President of India thereunder”, the Bench held.

The Bench pointed out that 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.

Noting that 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, the Bench observed that the absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act may not be reason enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on 25 which the Highways Acts was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to cut down on time-consuming processes.

The Apex Court also made it clear that there was no possibility of the State of Tamil Nadu exercising arbitrary discretion in adopting one legislation or the other for the purpose of acquiring lands. 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, the bench added.

“Therefore, the State of Tamil Nadu would be bound to apply only the Highways Act for acquiring lands for the purposes reserved thereunder”, the Bench said while dismissing the appeals.