CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II- EXERCISE

A: In the given problem, it becomes evident that the State had discretion to choose the manner of
proceeding to acquire the property, and the owner files a suit because the one chosen was
onerous and affected his interests. There are two levels to this case, the first being the legislative
competence of the State in acquiring the aforementioned property and second is whether the
action was discriminatory. It is an undisputed fact that the State has the powers to legislate in
respect of acquisition of property given by entry 42 in List III of the seventh schedule read with
article 246(2) of the constitution, and there arises no doubt in the legislative competence of the
State to enact such a law to acquire land. The owner of the property contends that there was
discrimination under article 14. It is imperative to note that the legislature has powers to enact
retrospective laws to cure deficiencies, and there is no requirement of a judicial decision
declaring the law invalid for such a validation act to be passed. In the case of Cauvery Water
Disputes Tribunal1, the principle obtained was that the legislature can change the basis on which
a court decision was rendered and change the law in general, but cannot individual decision inter
partes affecting their rights alone. Such an act would amount to exercising of judicial power
which is not permissible. In the given case, the retrospective legislation will affect a class of
persons at large, something which is permissible and valid, and there was no exercise of judicial
power by functioning similar to an appellate tribunal or court.

The debate arises because there were two proceedings and the State had a choice, and thus an
argument arises that article 14 may be violated because the owner’s interests were affected by
the State’s discretion. It is necessary to keep in mind that the land acquisition is done in public
interest, and this overrides the individual’s interest at all times. In this situation the way forward
for the State was to remove the fact that it had two options, leading to the conclusion that there
was just one proceeding employed. This will be an acceptable scenario because it leads to the
conclusion that there was no scope for discretion and removed the argument of discrimination
because it was well within the legislative powers which had no specified bars in this regard
whatsoever. It has to be pointed that out that when any act or amendment is brought into force, in
the process the rights of some are bound to be affected. Therefore, in every case it cannot be
urged that article 14 was violated because of the retrospective effect of the provision as it would

1
Re AIR 1992 SC 522
lead to a corollary being that the legislature has no power no legislate retrospectively, which is a
wrong stand2.

The case of State of Mysore v. D. Achiah Chetty3 is very similar to the facts of the given case.
There were two acts for acquiring property by the state, namely the Mysore Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. This was challenged and the court said that
the legislature could simply repeal one of the acts rendering all acquisitions to be brought under
the other, and the power of the legislature could not be denied. It is well known that class
legislation is always permissible. Thus if two procedures exist and one is followed discarding the
other, it may be a case of discrimination. This case is an authority for the proposition that once
legislative competence is present, the legislature can put out one of the procedures
retrospectively, which will leave only one procedure available4. In this manner a validating act
can get over the vice of discrimination and render the actions taken legal. Thus in this case the
court will uphold the view taken by it in the previous cases as mentioned that, the retrospective
act cures the discrimination. Therefore the court will favor the respondents and validate the
State’s acquisition of the petitioner’s property by upholding the retrospective legislation.

-H. ABHINAV SRINIVASAN

(BC0180003)

2
State of TN v Arooran Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1997 SC 1815
3
(1969) 1 SCC 248
4
Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer, (1972) 2 SCC 239