Madras High Court
M.Akbar Ali vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 July, 2021
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.07.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
The Hon'ble Mrs.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.7723, 7725, 7727 and 7728 of 2018
M.Akbar Ali .. Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.1078/2018
P.Periyasamy .. Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.1080/2018
P.Selvaraj .. Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.1082/2018
A.Abdul Siddiq .. Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.1083/2018
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary to Government,
Highways Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
lalgudi,
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
Trichy District. ... Respondents 1 to 3 in all W.As
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Saptharishwarar Thirukovil,
Lalgudi, Trichy District. .. Fourth Respondent in
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078 & 1080/2018
5.Warish .. Fourth Respondent in
W.A.(MD).Nos.1082 and 1083 of 2018
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent, to set aside the order dated 01.03.2018 in W.P.(MD).Nos.13368,
13372, 13377 and 13378 of 2015 and thereby allow the writ appeals as
prayed for.
For Appellants : Mr.R.R.Kannan
(In all W.As)
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Govt. for R1 to R3
(In all W.As) : Mr.Chandrasekar for R4
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
These writ appeals have been filed by the writ petitioners
challenging the common order dated 01.03.2018 passed in a batch of
cases, where the appellants challenged the land acquisition proceedings
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
2. There were two sets of writ petitions in the batch. One set of
writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings on merits and the
other set of writ petitions seeking writ of declaration to hold that the
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 is repugnant to the Central Act, namely,
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and hence, the acquisition
proceedings initiated under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways
Act, 2001 has got lapsed and inoperative.
3. The legal issue involved in this matter has been settled by
the Honourable Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1411 of 2020
[G.Mohan Rov and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others] and the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act continue to be a valid piece of
legislation. The relevant portions of the said decision are extracted
hereunder:
“27. As the name suggests, the impugned Act is in the
nature of a validation Act i.e., an Act which validates
something invalid in the eyes of law and to make such
validation effective, it has been given a retrospective effect by
the State. Whereas the subjectmatter legislative competence
is manifest from ListIII of the VII Schedule read with Article
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
246. Despite that, an inprinciple question has been
raised on the competence of the State legislature to
pass a revival Act with retrospective effect.
.........
29. The line of decisions discussed above
reveals a settled position as regards the competency
of legislature to enact a retrospective validating Act,
inter alia, delineated as under:
(i) The legislature must be having power over the
subject matter as also competence to make a
validating law.
(ii) There must be a clear validating clause coupled
with substantive change in the earlier position.
(iii) The retrospective operation must be
specified clearly.
(iv) There can be no express or declaratory
overruling of the judgment of the Court.
(v) It is permissible for the legislature to make a
decision of the Court ineffective by removing the
material basis of the decision in the manner that the
Court would not have arrived at the same
conclusion had the corrected/modified position
prevailed at the time of rendering the said earlier
decision.
Notably, the factum of power vested in the State legislature
over the subject matter and its competence to make a
validating law is not in issue or disputed in the present case.
..........
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
...........
40. Having said thus, the argument that the 2019 Act
could not be said to be a “reenactment” of the 1997 Act and
2001 Act deserves to be addressed. For, the High Court
judgment called for reenactment for the proper fulfilment of
Article 254(2). While enacting the 2019 Act, the State
legislature neither individually placed the 1997 Act and 2001
Act in the form of fresh bills before the House, nor
introduced amending Acts for the said three
enactments in order to incorporate the provisions of
compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation. Instead, it
framed one bill that sought to achieve four purposes –
first, amend the State enactments to provide for
different provisions of compensation to bring them in line
with the law made by the Parliament;
second, add fresh provisions relating to resettlement,
rehabilitation and infrastructure amenities at par with the
2013 Act;
third, revive the enactments declared to be repugnant and
void by the High Court and validate them after passing this
bill in the assembly and placing it before the President; and
fourth, restore the validity of all past acquisitions under the
State legislations, quashed by the High Court by
making the Act operative from a retrospective date.
............
............
52. In the present case, the letter seeking
assent clearly demonstrates that the three State enactments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
were made for the purpose of speedy acquisitions. It further
states that the law made by the Parliament rendered
the three enactments repugnant and out of operation owing
to the Madras High Court judgment. It also states that the
State has considerable interest, having a strong bearing on
the public exchequer, in saving and reviving the three State
enactments. It also clearly specifies the law made by the
Parliament, which could be coming in the way of the State
enactments for due consideration by the President. Suffice it
to say that the communication was in compliance with the
mandate of Article 254 as well as with the decision of this
Court in KaiserIHind Pvt. Ltd.49 We see no reason to
intervene on this ground.
............
54. The above understanding emanates from the basic
concept of retrospectivity. The primary objective of
retrospective application of a law is to alter an undesirable
past circumstance and it is meant to apply to things which
have already happened. In Halsbury’s Laws of England,
retrospectivity is defined as:
“921. Meaning of “retrospective”. It has been
said that “retrospective” is somewhat ambiguous and
that a good deal of confusion has been caused by the
fact that it is used in more senses than one. In general,
however, the courts regard as retrospective any
statute which operates on cases or facts coming into
existence before its commencement in the sense that it
affects, even if for the future only, the character or
consequences of transactions previously entered
into or of other past conduct. Thus a statute is
not retrospective merely because it affects
existing rights; or is it retrospective merely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn
from a time antecedent to its passing.”
(emphasis supplied)
The underlying purpose of retrospectivity, therefore, is to
cure including validate certain transactions of the past by
making a law in the present and not to compete with the laws
existing in the past at that point of time. In this case, the
objective was to save and validate past acquisitions
under the three State enactments, which were valid until
the commencement of the 2013 Act but stood quashed due to
the High Court decision. This was also for altering the basis
of the law in existence at that point of time and providing for
benefits at par with the 2013 Act, so far as it was fit in the
wisdom of the State legislature. No doubt, it may appear
anomalous to operationalise the 2019 Act from
26.09.2013, a day prior to the making of the 2013 Act, but it
does not make any impact on the validity thereof
or its substance. The date has been chosen by the State
legislature only by way of abundant caution and, in our view,
rightly. It is obviously relevant to overcome the repugnancy
corresponding to the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Adopting any other interpretation would not only be
unwarranted as per the constitutional scheme but would
also strike at the very purpose of a retrospective reviving and
validating enactment. More so, it would open a pandora’s
box of unforeseen conflicts.
...............
56. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold the
2019 Act to be a legitimate legislative exercise and find it to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
be consistent with and within the four corners of
Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the
High Court judgment.
57. Thus, we dismiss the present batch of writ
petitions.”
4. In the light of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme
Court, the order passed by the learned Single Bench does not call for
interference. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(T.S.S.J.,) ( S.A.I.J.,)
08.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Highways Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Trichy District,
Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
lalgudi,
Trichy District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Saptharishwarar Thirukovil,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082 and 1083 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsm
W.A.(MD).Nos.1078, 1080, 1082
and 1083 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.7723, 7725, 7727
and 7728 of 2018
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
