Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P. No. 29555/2016, W.P. 29875/2016, W.P.31089/2016, W.P.32790/2016, W.P.34917/2016, W.P. Nos. 29555, 29875, 31089, 32790 and 34917 of 2016 & W.M.P. Nos. 25565, 25566, 25869, 25870, 26955, 26956, 28351, 28352, 30060 & 30061 of 2016

Advocates

.. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, S.C., for in all W.Ps. Mrs. AL. Ganthimathi
.. Mr. Mani Shankar, in all W.Ps. Additional Advocate General Assisted by
Mr. K.V. Dhanapalan, Special Government Pleader for R1 & R3
Mr. R. Thiagarajan, S.C., for
Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia for R2

Judges

M.M. Sundresh, J.

Acts

Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, and Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997,
Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997
Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997,
Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997,
Sec. 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997
Sec. 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997
Schedule.(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of Section 106, the Central Government
Section 110. Further, the Land Reforms Act including Section 110
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.105-A. Provisions of this Act
sub-section (1) of Section 15 with sub section (1) of Section
Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, the said section
Sub Sections 1 and 2 of Section 105-A of Act 1 of 2015
Central Act 1 of 1894, Chapter III of Tamil Nadu Act 10
relevant.64. Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act
LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999,
Section 107 and 110 of the Land Reforms Act.
ARTICLE 254 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
sub-section (2), the provisions of Section 66
sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act
sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act
Nadu Act 10 of 1999, under Section 7(6)
provisions of Section 110. Section 107,
Punjab Alienation of Land Act
sub-section (2) of Section 107,
Industries Purposes Act, 1997.
Industrial Purposes Act, 1997,
sub Section 1 of Section 63
Section 105(A)(2) of Act 30
Alienation of Land Act
Section 4(2)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judicial Opinion — Common Order: Summary and Analysis

Factual and Procedural Background

Multiple writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 29555 of 2016; 29875 of 2016; 31089 of 2016; 32790 of 2016; 34917 of 2016) were filed under Article 226 seeking writs of certiorari to call for and quash notices issued in Form E under Section 4(2) and notifications under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, insofar as they related to identified parcels of land in Tondiarpet/Thondaiyarpet (various survey numbers and extents stated in the petitions). The notices related to acquisition for formation of the Metro Railway Station, Tondiarpet.

The Court treated the petitions together and issued a common order. The record shows that after compliance with Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act, an award enquiry notice was issued and, at that stage, these writ petitions were filed. The State had not issued the formal notification under the Central Act procedure, but the State issued G.O.Ms. No. 251 (Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 31.12.2014) extending certain benefits of the Central Act (Act 30 of 2013) pending notification. The Court heard argument, received additional judgments from the petitioners after conclusion of arguments, and delivered this common order dismissing the writ petitions while preserving the petitioners' entitlement to compensation benefits under Act 30 of 2013 as agreed by the respondents.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the notices in Form E issued under Section 4(2) and the notifications under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, in respect of the petitioners' lands, should be quashed.
Whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) applies to acquisitions made under the Tamil Nadu Act of 1997 in the absence of a formal notification by the State under Section 105-A(2) / Section 105(3) of Act 30 of 2013.
Whether there is repugnancy between the Central Act (Act 30 of 2013) and the State enactment, invoking Article 254 of the Constitution, such that the acquisition proceedings under the State Act would be rendered invalid.
Whether the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) affects compensation provisions that were incorporated by reference into Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, and thereby whether any provision for compensation remains available to the petitioners.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners challenged the Form E notices and the notifications under the Tamil Nadu Act and sought quashing of the acquisition notices affecting their lands.
They argued that in the absence of a notification under Section 105-A(2) (or corresponding provision) the beneficial provisions of Act 30 of 2013 should not apply; and that, by operation of Section 105-A(2) of Act 30 of 2013, the exemption provided elsewhere would fall away leading to repugnancy invoking Article 254 of the Constitution.
They contended that the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 leaves no operative provision for compensation under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, rendering the acquisition proceedings void.
The petitioners relied upon precedent(s) (including R. Moorthy) in support of the contention on repugnancy/Article 254 principles.

Respondents' Arguments

The State/respondents accepted on principle that, pending a formal notification, the compensation provisions of Act 30 of 2013 would be extended to acquisitions under the Tamil Nadu Act by G.O.Ms. No. 251 dated 31.12.2014.
They submitted that Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 105-A of Act 1 of 2015 are distinct; that the State Order extends benefits of Act 30 of 2013 (compensation) to the present acquisitions and therefore there is no legal vacuum for compensation.
They argued there is no repugnancy between the Acts; thus Article 254 does not invalidate the State acquisition. In addition, the project is of paramount public interest and largely completed, so injunctive relief would be inappropriate.
They contended that repeal of the earlier Central Act (1894) does not nullify provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 where those provisions incorporate by reference relevant provisions of the repealed Central Act; therefore the mechanism for determining compensation remains operative.
They maintained that rehabilitation/resettlement provisions are not triggered in the petitioners' cases because there is no mass displacement; petitioners' interests in compensation are protected by application of Act 30 of 2013 benefits as agreed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R. Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014 (2) CWC 763)	Cited by petitioners in support of argument on repugnancy and operation of Article 254 of the Constitution.	The Court recorded that the petitioners relied on this authority, but it did not accept that reliance as determinative of repugnancy in the present facts.
Ram Sarup v. Munshi (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 553)	Principle of incorporation: where provisions of an earlier Act are incorporated into a later Act, repeal of the earlier Act does not affect the incorporated provisions.	Cited to support the view that repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not render inoperative provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 that incorporated provisions of the repealed Act; Court relied on this to reject the petitioners' contention that repeal creates a compensation vacuum.
South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum (AIR 1964 SC 207)	Interpretation of constitutional provisions (Articles 277, 278, 372) and interaction among constitutional provisions.	The Court observed this authority dealt with distinct constitutional provisions and held it did not assist the petitioners' case on the present facts.
Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service v. Regional Transport Authority (AIR 1966 SC 1318)	Interpretation of statutory language and relationship between rules and statute; harmonious construction.	The Court noted the context of that decision was different and that its principles of interpretation did not apply to create a conflict in the present case.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram ((1986) 4 SCC 447)	Legal principle distinguishing the expressions "notwithstanding" and "subject to"; interpretation of legislative intent where language is plain.	The Court held that this decision, which explains the contrast between "notwithstanding" and "subject to", militates against the petitioners' contention and supports the respondents' position on statutory construction.
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ((2011) 9 SCC 1)	Interpretation of provisions where one section is made "subject to" another (specifically Section 107 made subject to Section 110); principle that the section made subject yields to the provision to which it is made subject.	The Court relied on the ratio to support the respondents' submission that statutory provisions framed as "subject to" yield to the provisions to which they are made subject; the ratio supports the extension of State notification/power to modify exemptions.
Joginder Singh v. Deputy Custodian-General of Evacuee Property (AIR 1967 SC 145)	One of several precedents referenced in K.T. Plantation concerning statutory construction and interplay of provisions.	Cited in the opinion's list of authorities that reinforce the reasoning in K.T. Plantation; Court referenced the collection of authorities in support of the statutory-construction principle.
Bharat Hari Singhania v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1994 Supp (3) SCC 46)	Authority cited among a body of cases relating to statutory interpretation where sections are made subject to other provisions.	Included in the list of cases referenced by the Court to show consistent authority for the textual interpretation adopted; forms part of the supporting jurisprudence for the respondents.
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2004) 3 SCC 1)	Authority cited among supporting precedents on statutory interpretation relevant to "subject to" formulations.	Listed by the Court among decisions that support the respondents' position on yielding effect of "subject to" provisions.
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M. A. Rasheed ((2004) 4 SCC 460)	Authority cited in the chain of cases concerning statutory interpretation principles.	Referenced by the Court as part of the supporting jurisprudence consistent with the reasoning in K.T. Plantation.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (1977) 3 SCC 362	Authority cited among cases on statutory construction and precedence of provisions.	Cited in the list of precedents that the Court regarded as supportive of the statutory interpretation applied in dismissing the petitions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a sequence of legal and factual findings, limited to what is recorded in the opinion:

Commonality and Stage of Proceedings: The Court first noted that the petitions were common in issue and therefore disposed of by a common order. The acquisition process had advanced following compliance with Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act, including issuance of an award enquiry notice; the petitions were filed at that stage.
Interaction between Central Act (Act 30 of 2013) and State Law: The Court summarized the statutory scheme of Act 30 of 2013, especially Sections 103, 105 and related provisions which carve out enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule and provide for notifications to apply beneficial provisions of the Central Act. It then explained the State enactment (Act 1 of 2015) inserting Section 105-A and a Fifth Schedule (which includes the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997), and the requirement for a State notification under Section 105-A(2).
Administrative Interim Measure: The Court recorded that, because a formal State notification under Section 105-A(2) had not been issued, the State had passed G.O.Ms. No. 251 dated 31.12.2014 to extend the benefits of Act 30 of 2013 (relating to determination of compensation and rehabilitation/resettlement where beneficial) to acquisitions under the Tamil Nadu Act pending issuance of notification.
Parties' Agreement on Compensation Benefits: The respondents accepted, subject to the Government Order, that compensation benefits under Act 30 of 2013 would be applied to the present acquisitions; the Court treated that agreed position as significant.
Construction of Section 105-A: The Court analysed Sub-sections 1 and 3 (and Sub-section 2) of Section 105-A (Act 1 of 2015). It concluded that Sub-section (1) exempts enactments in the Fifth Schedule but Sub-section (2) operates to allow a notification to render certain beneficial provisions (compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement) applicable notwithstanding that exemption. The Court emphasized that the application of the beneficial provisions does not itself nullify or set aside an acquisition which proceeded under the State Act.
Repugnancy and Article 254: The Court rejected the petitioners' argument of repugnancy between the Central Act and the State Acts that would invoke Article 254. The Court held there was no repugnancy: Section 105-A itself contemplates the position and allows application of beneficial provisions; the State's G.O. extended such benefits pending formal notification.
Effect of Repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Court accepted the respondents' submission (supported by the Ram Sarup precedent) that repeal of the earlier Central Act does not nullify provisions incorporated by reference into Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 (Section 7(6) and related provisions). Thus, the mechanism to determine compensation survives by incorporation.
Precedent Analysis: The Court considered the authorities produced by the petitioners after hearing and explained why those judgments did not assist the petitioners. In particular, it held that several authorities on statutory construction and on the effect of "subject to" versus "notwithstanding" supported the respondents' position rather than the petitioners'.
Public Interest and Project Progress: The Court noted the substantial completion of the metro project (over 90% according to respondents' sketch), the public interest involved, and that petitioners had participated in the proceedings; balancing these factors, the Court found no merit in the petitions.
Relief and Protection: Although the writ petitions were dismissed, the Court expressly protected the petitioners' entitlement to compensation (and other benefits, if any) under Act 30 of 2013 as agreed by the respondents and pursuant to the Government Order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petitions were dismissed. The Court concluded there was no legal basis to quash the acquisition notices and notifications in the circumstances recorded, and therefore the petitions failed on merits.

Implications and Direct Consequences:

The dismissal leaves the acquisitions in place; the acquisition process had already advanced (vesting upon issuance of notices under Section 4(2)).
The petitioners remain entitled to benefits with respect to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) as agreed by the respondents and in terms of the Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 251 dated 31.12.2014).
The Court emphasized that the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not negate compensation provisions incorporated into the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999; consequently, there is no compensation vacuum affecting these proceedings.
No costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
The opinion does not purport to create any new legal principle beyond the application of established statutory-construction and incorporation doctrines; it resolves the petitions on the specific statutory scheme, the Government Order, the respondents' admissions and the public-interest facts of the project.

End of summary. All material in this summary is derived exclusively from the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

N. Sathish Kumar Petitioner v. The Secretary To Government Industries Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

Petition in W.P. No. 29555 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice dt.1.7.2016 in Form E issued under Sec. 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and the Notification dt.23.1.2016 issued under Sec. 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 in so far as the lands of the petitioner of an extent of 1,180 sq.ft. in Block No. 41 T.S. No. 2561 in Thondaiyarpet Village Chennai and quash the same.

Petition in W.P. No. 29875 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari Calling for the records relating to the Notice dated 1.7.2016 in Form E issued under Sec. 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and the Notification dated 23.1.2016 issued under Sec. 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 in so far as the lands of the petitioners of an extent of 1,091 sq.ft. bearing Old Survey No. 31(Old No. 40) Previous No. 11 Ramanuja Iyer Street Old Washermenpet Chennai-21.

Petition in W.P. No. 31089 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice dt.12.07.2016 in Form-E issued by the 3 respondent under Sec. 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and the Notification dt.23.01.2016 issued by the 2 respondent under Sec. 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 in so far as the lands of the petitioner of an extent of 1 763 sq.ft. in Block No. 41 R.S. No. 2563 (New R.S. No. 2563/2) in Tondiarpet Village Chennai and quash the same.

Petition in W.P. No. 32790 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the notice dated 29.08.2016 in Na.Ka. No. 04/LA/CMRL/2016 and the notification dated 23.01.2016 issued by the 2 respondent herein under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and quash the same insofar as it relates to the petitioner's land are concerned of an extent of 1335 sq.ft. And building therein in TS. No. 2560, Block No. 41 of Tondiarpet Village.

Petition in W.P. No. 34917 of 2016 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 3 respondent herein relating to the notice dated 12.07.2016 and Notification dated 23.01.2016 issued by the 2 respondent herein under section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act 1997 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner's land are concerned of an extent of 200 sq.ft and building thereon in R.S. No. 2566 Block No. 41 within the registration district of North Chennai and Sub-Registration District of Royapuram of Tondiarpet Village.

COMMON ORDER

M.M. Sundresh, J.:— All these writ petitions have been filed challenging the notices issued in Form-E under Section 4(2) as well as the Notifications issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, in respect of the lands owned by the petitioners' for the formation of Metro Railway Station, Tondiarpet.

2. As the issues sought to be raised being common, these writ petitions are disposed of through a common order.

3. After due compliance of Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, an award enquiry notice was issued to the petitioners. At that stage, these writ petitions have been filed.

4. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into effect from 01.01.2014 (hereinafter called as “the Act 30 of 2013”). A comprehensive procedure has been prescribed under the Act. Section 103 of the Act 30 of 2013 shows that the provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. As per Section 105, the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 are not to be applied in certain cases or to be applied with certain modifications. Sub Section (1) of Section 105 of the Act 30 of 2013 states that the Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth schedule, subject to sub section (3). Sub section (3) of the Act 30 of 2013 mandates the Central Government through a notification, within one year from the date of the commencement of the Act, to apply any of the provisions of the Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

5. Thus, sub section (1) deals with enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to whom the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 shall not apply, of course subject to sub section (3) which deals with issues pertaining to compensation rehabilitation and resettlement. To put with clarity, the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule would proceed on their own provisions except issues governing compensation rehabilitation and resettlement available under Section 30 of 2013, which are more beneficial to the land owners. It is apposite to extract Section 105 of the Act 30 of 2013.

“105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications:- (1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of Section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the ate of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament.”

6. On the same line, Act 1 of 2015 has been brought forth by the Government of Tamil Nadu by inserting Section 105(A) creating a Fifth Schedule for certain other enactments including Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

“105-A. Provisions of this Act not to apply to certain Tamil Nadu Acts or to apply with certain modifications.—(1) Subject to sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fifth Schedule. (2) The State Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act, relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fifth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.”

7. Since a notification has not been issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, an order was passed in G.O.Ms. No. 251, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department dated 3112.2014 extending the benefits qua the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement under Act 30 of 2013 to the acquisition made under Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industries Purposes Act, 1997. These are the relevant passages governing the Government Order.

“4. Accordingly, pending assent, to provide fair compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, the Government have now decided that the provisions of Central Act 30 of 2013 relating to determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition where the notice under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, published on or after 1.1.2014.”

8. In tune with the Government Order aforesaid, it is agreed on principle by all the respondents that pending notification, the acquisition made in the present cases would be governed by the Act 30 of 2013 for the purpose of compensation as in the case of other enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule.

9. The project went on. The sketch shown by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent would show that over and above 90% of the work has been completed except the lands, which are the subject matter of these writ petitions.

10. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 105(A)(2) of Act 30 of 2013 when there is no notification available under Section sub clause II then even the exemption provided under sub Clause I also would go. As there is repugnancy between the Central and State enactments, Article 254 (i) of the Constitution of India would come into play. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has made reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in R. MOORTHY v. STATE of TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHWAYS AND MINOR PORTS DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI (2014 (2) CWC 763).

11. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 3 would submit that Sub Sections 1 and 2 of Section 105-A of Act 1 of 2015 are distinct and different. It has been agreed between the respondents that the benefits of Act 30 of 2013 insofar as the compensation would be extended to the case of the petitioners in view of the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 251, Industries (SIPCOT-LA) Department, dated 31.12.2014. The project, which is of the paramount public interest, is nearing completion. The petitioners participated in the proceedings. As notices under Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, are issued already, vesting takes place. The petitioners cannot have a grievance in view of an application of the beneficial provision qua the compensation under Section 30 of 2013. Under Section 114 of the Act 30 of 2013, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 stood repealed. Sections 6 and 7 coming under Chapter-III, Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 deals with determination and payment of compensation amount. As per Section 7(6) of the said Act, the Collector is required to be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thus, despite the repealing of Central Act 1 of 1894, Chapter III of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 with specific reference to Sections 6 and 7 are not repealed by necessary implication.

12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that in any case, the petitioners' cases would not come under rehabilitation or resettlement, as there is no mass displacement of the livelihood involved. Thus, the petitioners' interest are sufficiently protected and in view of Act 1 of 2015, there is no basis for the writ petitions filed.

13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, by way of reply to the arguments made, submits that in view of the repealing of Central Act 1 of 1894, there is no provision for compensation under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 as well, and thus, the entire proceedings are void.

14. As discussed above, Sub Sections 1 and 3 of Section 105-A of the Act 1 of 2015 are distinct and different. If one reads Sub Section (1), there is no doubt that it exempts the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fifth Schedule. Admittedly, the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, comes under Fifth Schedule. The only exemption that is given is with respect to the provisions which are not made applicable to the enactments relating to the land Acquisition specified in the Fifth Schedule is to the contingency specified under Sub Section 2. Thus, when the provision dealing with the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement under Act 30 of 2013 is beneficial and gives more succour to a land owner divested with the land than the one provided under the enactments mentioned in the Fifth Schedule, then such a provision will have to be applied notwithstanding an acquisition made under those enactments. As there is no dispute that the provisions governing compensation under Act 30 of 2013 are more beneficial than the one provided under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes 1997, a notification is sought to be made as mandated under Section 105-A sub clause 2 of Act 1 of 2015. Therefore, sub clause 2 of Section 105-A of the Act 1 of 2015, in specific terms, deals with the factors mentioned therein and thus, has got no direct connection with the “acquisition of land” under the Acts mentioned in the Fifth Schedule as such. In the case on hand, it is not necessary to go into the issue pertaining to the non-publication of the notification since the respondents have agreed to grant the benefit. Suffice it is to state that even assuming that a notification has not been issued and published by the State Government, that by itself will not set at naught or nullify the acquisition made.

15. There is no repugnance involved. This is for the reason, Section 105-A of the Act 1 of 2015 itself gives a clearance for an acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Though under Section 114 of the Act 30 of 2013, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) has been repealed, the provisions of compensation available under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, under Section 7(6) would not become inoperative. This provision as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent is a piece of legislation by incorporation. Thus, even though the provision contained under Sections 23 and 24 and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are made applicable to determine the compensation amount under Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, the said section shall continue to be in statute. To put it otherwise, repealing of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not have any bearing on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999, though certain provisions of the earlier Act have been borrowed into it. This position of law has been held way back in the year 1963 in RAM SARUP v. MUNSHI (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 553) the following is fruitful recapitulation of relevant passage.

“(1) Definition of “agricultural land’ under S.3(1): Where the provisions of an Act are incorporated by reference in a later Act the repeal of the earlier Act has, in general, no effect upon the construction or effect of the Act in which its provisions have been incorporated. The effect of incorporation is stated by Brett, L.J., in Clarke v. Bradlugh, (1881) 8 QBD 63.

“Where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second.”

In the circumstances, therefore, the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act of 1900 has no effect on the continued operation of the Preemption Act and the expression ‘agricultural land’ in the later Act has to be read as if the definition in the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily transposed into it.”

16. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is neither a provision for compensation under Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999 nor under Act 30 of 2013 available to the petitioners and thus, the entire land acquisition proceedings would become nullity, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

17. After the arguments were concluded and the order was dictated, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a mention before this Court and produced the following judgments:

1. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION (P) LTD. v. SECRETARY, BOARD of REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM (AIR (1964) 4 Supreme Court 207);

2. PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (AIR (1966) Supreme Court 1318);

3. CHANDAVARKAR SITA RATNA RAO v. ASHALATA S. GURAM, (1986) 4 SCC 447; and

4. K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE of KARNATAKA ((2011) 9 SCC 1).

18. These judgments have been produced after duly noticing the counsel for the respondents.

19. The judgments produced do not help the case of the petitioner. In SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION (P) LTD. v. SECRETARY, BOARD of REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM (AIR (1964) 4 Supreme Court 207), the Honourable Apex Court was dealing with the constitutional provisions containing under Articles 277, 278 and 372 of the Constitution of India. It was held that Article 372 being subject to the other provisions of the Constitution is also subject to Article 278, which opens out with a non obstante clause “notwithstanding anything in the Constitution”.

20. In PUNJAB SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (AIR (1966) Supreme Court 1318), the interpretation was with respect to Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, and Section 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Taking into consideration of opening part of sub Section 1 of Section 63 “except as may be otherwise prescribed”, it was held that in view of Clause a of Rule 62, which provides “subject to the provisions of Rule 63” it was held that the said Rule 63 must supersede the direction contained under Section 63(1) of the statute. Such a situation is not available in the present case as there is no apparent conflict between the Act and the Rules. In the said case, a harmonious construction was made by rightly interpreting the provisions. Thus, the said decision does not have any application.

21. In CHANDAVARKAR SITA RATNA RAO v. ASHALATA S. GURAM ((1986) 4 SCC 447), the Apex Court was dealing with the intention of the legislation and thus, not to amend what is actually expressed, especially when the language is plain and admits of only one meaning. Therefore, it has been further held that the expression “notwithstanding” is in contra distinction to the phrase ‘subject to’. Thus, the words “subject to” would mean a provision yielding place to another provision to which it is made subject. The following paragraph of the said decision would be apposite.

“68. It is well settled that the expression “notwithstanding” is in contradistinction to the phrase “subject to”, the latter conveying the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject. This will be clarified in the instant case by comparison of sub-section (1) of Section 15 with sub section (1) of Section 15-A.”

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said decision would in fact militate against the contention sought to be raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

22. In K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE of KARNATAKA ((2011) 9 SCC 1), the issue was with respect to the interpretation of Section 107 and 110 of the Land Reforms Act. For the better appreciation, both the provisions are reproduced hereunder.

“53. Section 107 states that the provisions of the Act would not apply to certain lands mentioned therein, but made subject to the provisions of Section 110. Section 107, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose, is extracted below for easy reference:

“107. Act not to apply to certain lands.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 110, nothing in this Act, except Section 8, shall apply to lands,-

xxx xxx xxx

(vi) used for the cultivation of linaloe;

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), no person shall, after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act acquire in any manner for the cultivation of linaloe, land of an extent which together with the land cultivated by linaloe, if any, already held by him exceeds ten units.

(3) In respect of every acquisition contrary to sub-section (2), the provisions of Section 66 to 76 shall mutatis mutandis apply.”

54. Section 107, we have already indicated, is made subject to Section 110, which reads as follows:

“110. Certain lands to be not exempt from certain provisions.- The State Government may, by notification direct that any land referred to in [Section 107 and 108] shall not be exempt from such of the provisions of this Act from which they have been exempted under the said sections.”

23. Considering the above, it was held by the Apex Court that inasmuch as Section 107 is subject to Section 110, the former yields to the latter being the will of the legislature. The following paragraphs are relevant.

64. Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act empowers the State Government to withdraw the exemption granted to any land referred to in Sections 107 and 108. Section 107 itself has been made “subject to” Section 110 of the Act. The words ‘subject to’ conveys the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject.

65. In Black Law Dictionary, 5 Edn. At p.1278, the expression “subject to” has been defined as under:

“Subject to--Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or effected by; provided that; provided; answerable for.”

66. Since Section 107 is made subject to Section 110, the former section conveys the idea of yielding to the provision to which it is made subject that is Section 110 which is the will of legislature. Reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Moudhapara, Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1966 SC 1318, Joginder Singh v. Deputy Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, AIR 1967 SC 145 and Bharat Hari Singhania v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), 1994 Supp (3) SCC 46, Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC 1, Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M. A. Rasheed, (2004) 4 SCC 460, South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivendrum, AIR 1964 SC 207, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth Trust), Hyderabad, (1977) 3 SCC 362 and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447.

67. The Legislature's apathy in granting exemption for lands used for cultivation of Linaloe is discernible from the language used in sub-section (2) of Section 107, which says that no person shall after the commencement of the Amendment Act acquire in any manner for the cultivation of Linaloe, land of an extent which together with the land cultivated by Linaloe, if any, already held by him exceeds ten units. Legislature, therefore, as matter of policy, wanted to give only a conditional exemption for lands used for Linaloe cultivation and the policy was to empower the State Government to withdraw the same especially when the law is that no person can claim exemption as a matter of right. The legislative will was to make Section 107 subject to Section 110and not the will of the delegate, hence, overriding effect has to be given to Section 110. Further, the Land Reforms Act including Section 110 was placed in IXth Schedule in the year 1965 and, hence, immune from challenge in a court of law.”

Thus, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments also supports the case of the respondents.

24. One has to see the public interest as well, though this Court is aware that an Act meant for acquisition is expropriatory. The project is stated to be stalled though substantial work has been completed. Hence, looking from any perspective, this Court does not find any merits in these writ petitions and accordingly, the same stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that in view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents, the petitioners are entitled for the benefits qua the compensation among other things, if any, under the Act 30 of 2013. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

Industrial Purposes Act, 1997,

N. Sathish Kumar Pet... v. The Secretary To Gov...