9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1217 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 challenged - repugnancy between the principal legislation (Land Acquisition Act) and the State Amendment - Held that - Section 41(6) to (9) introduced in the Principal Act by the Goa State Amendment renders ineffective Clause 4(viii) of the Agreement executed by the parties under Section 41 of the Principal Act. With Clause 4(viii) being deleted the embargo on constructions on the acquired land is removed. It is the aforesaid Clause 4(viii) and its legal effect, in view of Section 42, that was the basis of the Court s decision dated 20th January, 2009 holding the construction raised by the third respondent on the acquired land to be illegal and contrary to the Principal Act. Once Clause 4(viii) is removed the basis of the earlier judgment stands extinguished. In fact, it may be possible to say that if Clause 4(viii) had not existed at all, the judgment of the Court dated 20th January, 2009 would not have been forthcoming. It was therefore well within the domain of the legislature to bring about the Amendment Act with retrospective effect, the Legislative field also being in the Concurrent List, namely, Entry No. 42 of List III (Acquisition and Requisition of Property) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Section 41 of the Principal Act and the terms of the agreement executed thereunder (even if the latter is understood to be Law enacted by the competent legislature for the purpose of Article 254) are silent with regard to modification/variation or deletion/subtraction of the terms of the agreement. The State Amendment Act by bringing in Sub-sections (6) to (9) of Section 41 invalidates a clause of the agreement Clause 4(viii) by effecting a deletion thereof with retrospective effect i.e. 15.10.1964 (the date of coming into operation of the Principal Act to the State of Goa). The State Amendment, by no means, sets the law in a collision course with the Central/Principal enactment. Rather, it may seem to be making certain additional provisions to provide for something that is not barred under the Principal Act. If the provisions of the State Amendment are to be tested on the anvil of the finding of this Court that the acquisition in the present case is under Section 40(1)(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, the deletion of the relevant clause of the agreement as made by the said amendment may appear to be really in furtherance of the purpose of the acquisition under the Central Act. We, therefore, do not find any repugnancy between the Principal Act and the State Amendment, as urged on behalf of the petitioners in this case.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009. 2. Competence of the State Legislature to enact the Amendment in view of the Supreme Court's earlier decision. 3. Repugnancy between the State Amendment Act and the Principal Act under Article 254 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009: The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenges the constitutional validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009. The Act was promulgated by the Governor of Goa on 11.04.2009 and notified in the Official Gazette on 30.04.2009. The Amendment Act added Sub-sections 6 to 9 to Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, validating certain constructions and allowing modifications to agreements retrospectively. 2. Competence of the State Legislature: The petitioners argued that the Amendment Act seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's judgment dated 20.1.2009, which ordered the demolition of unauthorized construction by the third respondent. The Court held that while the legislature can alter the basis of a judgment, it cannot overrule the judgment itself. The Amendment Act was found to remove the basis of the Court's earlier decision by deleting Clause 4(viii) of the agreement, which prohibited construction on the acquired land. The Court upheld the legislative competence of the State to enact the Amendment Act retrospectively, as it falls within the Concurrent List (Entry No. 42 of List III). 3. Repugnancy under Article 254: The petitioners contended that the State Amendment Act is repugnant to the Principal Act and void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The Court examined whether there was a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central and State Acts. It concluded that the State Amendment Act does not set the law in a collision course with the Principal Act but rather makes additional provisions not barred under the Principal Act. The Amendment Act was seen as harmonizing the agreement executed under Section 41 with the satisfaction of acquisition for purposes contemplated by Section 40(1)(aa) of the Principal Act. Therefore, no repugnancy was found between the Principal Act and the State Amendment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009. The Court found no merit in the arguments challenging the competence of the State Legislature and the alleged repugnancy between the State Amendment Act and the Principal Act. The Amendment Act was deemed a legitimate exercise of legislative power, effectively removing the basis of the earlier judgment and validating the constructions retrospectively. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition, discharging the rule of notice.
|
