9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Draft Compensation Assessment Roll. 2. Legislative competence and effect of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Amendment Act 25 of 1978. 3. Entitlement to compensation at the rate of 9 times or 2 times the net annual income. Summary: 1. Validity of the Draft Compensation Assessment Roll: The respondent, a public limited company, challenged the Draft Compensation Assessment Roll published by the State Government on 5.12.1973, which determined the amount payable for surplus lands at the rate of 2 times the net annual income. The High Court quashed this Draft Compensation Assessment Roll, directing the State to apply the multiple of 9 times based on the amendments introduced by Act 7 of 1974. 2. Legislative Competence and Effect of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Amendment Act 25 of 1978: The State argued that the amendments introduced by Act 7 of 1974 were nullified by Act 25 of 1978, which restored the original provisions of the principal Act. Sections 4, 5, and 6 of Act 25 of 1978, with non-obstante clauses and deeming provisions, effectively effaced the amendments introduced by Act 7 of 1974. The Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence to enact Act 25 of 1978, stating that it did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the legislature has the power to legislate retrospectively and to remove the basis of a court's decision by altering the conditions on which it was based. 3. Entitlement to Compensation at the Rate of 9 Times or 2 Times the Net Annual Income: The respondent contended that due to the amendments by Act 7 of 1974, the vesting of surplus land should be deemed to have taken place on 1.3.1972, entitling them to compensation at the rate of 9 times the net annual income. However, the Supreme Court held that the amendments introduced by Act 7 of 1974 were nullified by Act 25 of 1978, which restored the original provisions of the principal Act. Consequently, the notification issued on 4.4.1973 under Section 18(1) of the Act was valid, and the surplus lands vested in the State Government on that date. Therefore, the compensation had to be worked out at the rate of 2 times the net annual income as per the amendments introduced by Act 39 of 1972. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1980 and set aside the High Court's judgments dated 8.10.1976 and 20.7.1979. The writ petitions filed by the respondent were dismissed, and the compensation was to be calculated at the rate of 2 times the net annual income. No order as to costs was made.
|
