Retrospective land reform amendment upheld, restoring vesting date to notification date and reducing compensation for surplus land.

The retrospective amendments in the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Amendment Act, 1978 validly omitted the 1974 amendment by non-obstante and deeming clauses, thereby restoring the principal Act as if the earlier changes had never been made. That legislative effacement was within competence because it removed the legal basis of the earlier High Court reasoning rather than directing disobedience to a judicial order. On that footing, vesting was treated as having occurred on the date of the section 18(1) notification, so compensation for the surplus lands had to be computed under the reduced multiple then in force. The challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective amendments introduced by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Amendment Act, 1978 validly effaced the earlier 1974 amendment and restored the date of vesting to the date of publication of the section 18(1) notification, and whether compensation for the surplus lands was therefore to be computed on the reduced multiple applicable on that date.

Analysis: The 1978 amendment used non-obstante and deeming clauses to omit the 1974 amendment retrospectively and to treat the principal Act as if the earlier changes had never been made. The legislative device was held to be within competence because it did not direct disobedience to a judicial order but removed the legal foundation on which the earlier High Court judgment had proceeded. Once the retrospective effacement of the 1974 amendment was given full effect, the vesting had to be treated as having occurred on the date of the section 18(1) notification, which was after the amendment that had reduced the compensation multiple from nine to two.

Conclusion: The retrospective amendments were held valid, the notification of 4.4.1973 remained effective, and compensation was payable only at two times the net annual income. The challenge by the respondent failed.

---