LAND LAW ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE TAMIL NADU

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 2019

SUBMITTED BY
DEVA DHARSHANI S
123087014
BA LLB(HONS)
V YEAR

ABSTRACT
Land acquisition has historically been a contentious issue in India. The struggle between the
right of the individual to enjoy their private property and the state's desire to acquire land for
a variety of public uses is the cause. In such a situation, the state has benefited from the use
of eminent domain, which allows it to purchase land for a variety of legitimate public
purposes. In addition, the corresponding loss of land can cause a variety of difficulties for the
people. Land being an important human right, it is necessary to examine this conflict in light
of evolving jurisprudence on the right to eminent domain if the state and the contours of
public purpose for which land may be acquired by the state. This essay aims to compare and
contrast the recent Indian Parliament legislation passed in 2013 with the colonial legal
framework for land acquisition.
It will be argued that even though a specific process has been established for acquiring land,
it is crucial to precisely define terms like "acquiring land for a public purpose," where
"national security" is listed as one of the public purposes. The paper will argue in favour of
the state's executive branch always conducting a Social Impact Assessment Study prior to any
proposed land acquisition.

INTRODUCTION
A person's property may be forcefully or compulsorily acquired by a sovereign government
under the doctrine of eminent domain if three requirements are met.
 The property will be put to optimal use for the common good.
 A fair compensation should be given, and
 The acquisition must follow the legal process as laid out in the law.
The Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which covered and regulated the entire process of land
acquisition in India, was used to acquire land in the past. The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013
subsequently took the place of this Act from colonial times (or RFCTLARR). The law
became effective on January 1st, 2014. But the LARR ordinance sought to significantly
amend it within a year of its implementation. Yet it expired. As acquisition and requisition
are on the concurrent list, the government was unable to pass the ordinance into law and
suggested that the state governments amend the law to suit their requirements.

CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

Any person or entity may be the owner of an asset referred to as property. Property comes in
two categories: tangible and intangible, both of which give the owner legal rights. Every
piece of real estate has a financial stake in it, which is why it is referred to as an asset. It
typically grants the owner a slew of rights by prohibiting anyone else from using or profiting
from it.
At this point, no statute has provided a clear legal definition of the term "property." The
Transfer of Property Act of 1882 is a significant piece of legislation that deals with property,
but it lacks a traditional legal definition of what constitutes property. However, there are
some Acts that do, and they are as follows:
Property refers to the general property in goods, not just a special property1, and
Property means property of any kind includes any right or interest in such property, whether
it be movable or immovable, tangible or intangible2.

RIGHT TO PROPERTY
Certain Fundamental Rights are guaranteed to Indian citizens under the heading "Right to
Freedom" in the form of Articles 19, 20, 21A, and 22 of the Indian Constitution. Property
rights is one of them. Before and after the 44th Amendment, there are two different ways to
look at property rights.

Property rights are protected by the Indian Constitution as Fundamental Rights in Part III of
the Constitution. Every Indian citizen is granted this right under Article 19(1) (f). By virtue of
the 44th Constitutional (Amendment) Act of 1978, Article 19(1) (f) was repealed. This means

1
S. 2(11), Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
2
S. 2(c), Benami Transaction Act, 1988.
that after this amendment, Article 31 was also repealed and replaced by Constitution 44th
(Amendment) Act to Article 300A, and the right to property is no longer a Fundamental
Right. As a result, India established the right to property as a statutory right.

LAND ACQUISITION
A person's private property may be acquired by the federal government or a state
government for any public purpose through the land acquisition process. Only public
purposes as permitted by law should be used for the acquired property. The person from
whom the property was taken must receive compensation for the takeover, as well as
appropriate rehabilitation and resettlement. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 set forth the
rules for the acquisition of land.
The Supreme Court ruled in Somawati v. State of Punjab 3 that the Land Acquisition Act's
purpose was to give the government the authority to only acquire land for public use or for a
company. Only after the government is convinced that the company's purpose is directly
connected to or for the construction of some work that is likely to prove directly useful to the
public land, could the provisions of part VII be followed when it pertains to a company 4.
However, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation, and Resettlement 2013 Act later took its place. Currently, this Act controls
every step of the land acquisition process.

Tamil Nadu’s restoration Act

With the passage of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2014, Tamil
Nadu became the first state to amend the LARR shortly after it went into effect in 2015. It
added a new section 105-A that stated that certain Tamil Nadu Acts would not be covered by
the RFCTLARR's provisions or that they would be subject to certain modifications. These
rules were
 The 1978 Act of Tamil Nadu for the Acquisition of Land for Harijan welfare scheme
 Act of 1997 for the Acquisition of Land for Industrial Uses in Tamil Nadu
 2001's Tamil Nadu Highways Act
The major land acquisition in the state was carried out by the latter two laws, according to a
report on RFCTLARR titled "Dilution by Design" published by the Centre for Science and
Environment. These laws had numerous flaws and were based on the Land Acquisition Act
of 1894. The state also stated in the amendment that it would issue a notification, within a
year, extending compensation and rehabilitation provisions to purchases made in accordance
with the aforementioned law, in accordance with RFCTLARR provisions. But it never
materialised.

3
Somawati v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 151.
4
Legal regime on land acquisition in India: a critical study http://hdl.handle.net/10603/48090.
On January 1st, 2015, the amendment received presidential approval. More than 240 writ
petitions challenging the revival of outdated laws were filed in the Madras High Court after
the Tamil Nadu state government began acquiring land in accordance with their laws after
receiving the presidential assent.

HIGH COURT DISSAPPOINTING THE GOVERNMENT

The Caritas India v. Union of India5 case brought the issue before the Madras High
Court (2019). Justice S. Manikumar and Justice. Subramonium Prasad, a two-judge panel,
declared all purchases made pursuant to state statutes to be unlawful as of September 27,
2013, the day the President approved the RFCTLARR.
The petitioner claimed that all laws passed by the Tamil Nadu state government on related
subjects were rendered invalid by Article 254 as of the date the RFCTLARR entered into
force on January 1, 2014. This indicates that a later amendment, such as the one made by the
Tamil Nadu government by adding Section 105-A to the Act, will not be able to reinstate the
state Acts that have already been declared null and void. The state Acts will not be
safeguarded by even the presidential assent to such an amendment.
The Court accepted the petitioner's arguments and adopted the Supreme Court's
interpretation in the case of State of Kerala v. Mar Appraem Kuri Ltd. (2012) 6. The
provisions of Article 254(2)7 would not apply in the case of an existing State law that has
been rendered offensive by a new enactment of Parliament, according to Justice
Subramonium Prasad. Laws passed by States prior to the effective date of the Central
Legislation, which renders them offensive, are not protected by Article 254(2). It mandates
that the President be given a fresh opportunity to consider the entire abhorrent law before
giving his approval to the entire document. This law, which would otherwise be abhorrent, is
thereby specifically preserved. He must give his current approval to these laws.
Additionally, the court determined that Section 105-A is inoperative because it does not meet
the requirements of Section 105-A (2) and Section 105-A (3). The lands that had already been
acquired and put to use were made an exception to the court's ruling that the acquisitions
made from September 27, 2013, were invalid. Since reclaiming those lands "would be like
trying to unscramble an egg," In these situations, the court mandated compensation in
accordance with the new RFCTLARR Act.

The Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act, 2019

According to the High Court's ruling, creating a new Act from scratch and receiving
presidential assent was the only way to bring the old Act back to life. Just two weeks after the

5
Caritas India v. Union of India, (2019) 5 Mad LJ 641, 03-07-2019
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-361905.pdf.
6
State Of Kerala & Ors vs M/S. Mar Appraem Kuri Co.Ltd. & Anr on 8 May, 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6660
OF 2005.
7
Article 254 in The Constitution Of India 1949.
High Court's ruling, the Tamil Nadu government passed the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition
Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment, and Validation) Act, 2019.

The following were a few of the Act's key provisions:

 The Act reinstated the effectiveness of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act of 2001, the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act of 1978, and the
Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act of 1997.
 The Act took effect retroactively on September 26, 2013.
 The RFCTLARR Act's compensation-related provisions would apply. Other than this,
no other RFCTLARR Act provision would be applicable.
 The Act also contained a validation provision that prohibited "any judgement, decree,
or order of any court" other than those pertaining to compensation determination from
being applied to the three state laws from September 26, 2013, until the day the Act
was notified.
On December 2, 2019, the Act received presidential assent. The Tamil Nadu government
appealed the High Court's ruling to the Supreme Court in addition to bringing a new Act to
resurrect the three outdated Acts.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ACT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In September 2019, the Supreme Court was petitioned to hear the case. The High Court
order was put on hold by the Supreme Court. The bench added that the matter needs
additional thought and will be resolved in November 2019. The hearing, however, couldn't
begin until December 2020 due to the Tamil Nadu government's delays.

In the meantime, numerous landowners filed new lawsuits in the High Court challenging the
2019 Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court has prohibited the High Court
from hearing any petitions on this topic, the High Court stated in its order from September
2020. Then, using Article 32, the landowners rapped on the doors of the Supreme Court.

G. Mohan Rao vs The State Of Tamil Nadu8

The Indian Constitution outlines a system in which the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of a state each perform an independent duty. As the protector of the constitution, the
legislature enacts legislation, the executive implements it, and the judiciary interprets it.
The people have adopted a system of checks and balances, but in the course of daily
operations, government institutions frequently cross their own lines. In this instance, a related
argument has been made. A key issue in this case is whether or how much a law that has been

8
G. Mohan Rao vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 June, 2021 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1411 OF 2020
declared unconstitutional by the constitutional Court can be changed by the legislature in
order to make it valid or revive legislation.
Land is a crucial resource for a nation's development. Similar to this, an individual's property
rights occupy a significant position in the hierarchy of rights.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER -
The petitioners were landowners whose property was taken under the Tamil Nadu
government's 1997 Act and 2001 Act.
1. The petitioners' main argument was that the Tamil Nadu government's 2019 Act to
resurrect the old Acts, which had been ruled unconstitutional, was an effort to
overturn the Madras High Court's ruling. The separation of powers principle was
broken by this government action.
2. The High Court's ruling required the state legislature to create a completely new law
rather than just bringing an Act to resurrect the previous laws that had been declared
void. Furthermore, it was stated that after a law was found to be unconstitutional, it
could no longer be changed.
3. The government's 2019 Act only applies the RFCTLARR provisions for
compensation; it does not apply the provisions for social impact assessments,
timelines for the various acquisition processes, or provisions relating to fair
procedure. As a result, it is not corrective legislation and violates Article 254 instead.
4. Additionally, the petitioners made an attempt to argue that the 2019 Act is repugnant
because of the retrospective effect of the Act and the emphasis on the word "made" in
Article 254.
5. The petitioners' final argument was that the 2019 Act violated Articles 14, 19, and 21
due to its unreasonable classification. They demanded the State to explain why it was
unable to implement laws from the Central government and had to create its own laws
due to these unique circumstances.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
1. The 2019 Act was passed under List III of the Seventh Schedule in order to revive the
previous amendment by adding section 105-A to RFCTLARR, but this did not
prevent the previous Acts from becoming offensive.
2. It was also emphasised that the 2019 Act was intended to safeguard the interests of
landowners, the general public, and the state. The state's authority to enact laws
retroactively was also emphasised.
3. The respondents disagreed with the High Court's ruling as well, claiming that only
some of the Act's provisions are offensive as a result of Article 254. As a result, there
is no need to start from scratch and enact a new law.
4. The 2019 Act was created in response to High Court rulings, and the flaws the Court
identified have been fixed, making it constitutional. Additionally, they added that the
2019 Act should not be compared word-for-word to the RFCTLARR Act because it
stands alone as an independent entity.
ISSUSES AS IDENTIFIED BY SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court identified the following issues based on the arguments made by
both parties in this case:

1. Whether the State legislature had the authority to pass the 2019 Act, which
served as a retrospective validating Act, under the law?
2. By passing the 2019 Act, did the State legislature overstep the bounds of its
legislative authority, effectively voiding or overturning the High Court's
decision?
3. Whether the 1997 Act and the 2001 Act violate Article 254 once more because
they are incompatible with the 2013 Act due to the 2019 Act's date of
retroactive commencement?

OBSERVATIONS
A list of topics on which both the state and the union governments may pass legislation is
contained in List III of the Seventh Schedule. According to the Madras High Court, if there is
a disagreement between the two, the union law will take precedence while the state Acts are
abhorrent. "Acquisition and requisitions of property" is entry 42 of List III. They have created
their laws similar to those of the Tamil Nadu government and the 2013 Act made by the
federal government using the same state.

The Tamil Nadu Assembly once more exploited the High Court ruling to reinstate the
application of state laws after it was issued. Is it possible to enact such a law retroactively at
this point? Yes, legislatures do have the authority to enact laws retroactively, and doing so is
fully permitted under the constitution. It is founded on the idea that the legislature serves as
the primary advocate for the public interest. So, the legislature also has the authority to
reinstate a legislation that has been declared unconstitutional.
According to Ujagar Prints & Ors. (II) v. Union of India & Ors (1989) 9, "A competent
legislature can always legitimise a legislation that has been declared illegal by courts,
provided the flaws and vitiating causes mentioned in the declaratory decision are eliminated
or healed. A validating statute of this kind may also be applied retroactively. The legislature
merely introduces a lawful statute with retroactive application, rendering past ruling
meaningless.
If the following criteria are met, the legislature may pass a retrospective law:
 The legislature should have the authority to enact laws on the subjects covered by
such laws.
 It is necessary to mention the retrospective provision. It shouldn't be to overturn a
court's decision.

9
Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988 1989 AIR 516, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 770
  The new statute must eliminate or fix every flaw in the previous one that the court
pointed out.

DOES THE 2019 ACT NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT

The Caritas India v. Union of India (2019)10case was heard by the high court, which
outlined four problems. The third concern, the resurgence of disagreeable law, is what raises
the question in this instance. The High Court ruled that the state legislature must re-enact a
law in accordance with Article 254 (2) in order to resurrect the objectionable statute; +this
would include putting Section 105-A into the RFCTLARR.
The idea of repugnancy, according to the Supreme Court, is intended to eliminate the
discrepancy between the laws of the state and the union. Additionally, Article 254 declares
that the law of the union supersedes state laws, although states are allowed to resurrect their
laws by getting presidential consent, as was done in this instance.

EFFECT OF RETROSPECTIVE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE 2019 ACT

The petitioner's argument, according to the court, is unpersuasive. And it was made clear
that legislation is considered to have been passed when it receives presidential assent in
accordance with Articles 111, 254, or 200 (Governor), not when it first becomes effective.

CONCLUSION
The RFCTLARR was bought at a time when there was anger among the landowners.
Continuous protests, violent clashes between the police and the landowners, and dozens of
court cases had almost halted all government’s major projects. The Act was introduced to
appease the landowners but slowly with time the state governments with their amendments
and getting Presidential assent have diluted the union law and we are again somewhere or the
other following the colonial-era law.

10
Caritas India v. Union of India, (2019) Mad LJ 641, 03-07-2019