Validating land acquisition legislation upheld where retrospective cure, compensation principle, and rational classification survived constitutional challenge.

The commentary explains that validating legislation for land acquisition can lawfully cure past defects if enacted within legislative competence, even without an express retrospective revival of the earlier notification. It notes the majority view that such validation did not offend the constitutional compensation guarantee because it did not alter the basic compensation principle under the acquisition law, but only permitted multiple declarations for land covered by one notification. The article also states that the amendment and denotification policy survived Article 14 review because the distinctions drawn were supported by a rational basis. A dissent is noted, taking the view that the validating provision unlawfully treated a dead notification as effective and impaired compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the validating amendment to the Land Acquisition law was beyond legislative competence for want of retrospective revival of the earlier notification and for allegedly encroaching upon judicial power; (ii) whether the validating provisions violated Article 31(2) by affecting the constitutional requirement of compensation; and (iii) whether the classification and differential treatment created by the amendment and by the executive denotification policy violated Article 14.

Issue (i): whether the validating amendment to the Land Acquisition law was beyond legislative competence for want of retrospective revival of the earlier notification and for allegedly encroaching upon judicial power.

Analysis: The majority held that the power to enact validating legislation is ancillary to the legislative field within competence, and that Parliament could validate past acquisitions and proceedings notwithstanding earlier adverse judicial decisions. It was further held that Indian constitutional law does not adopt the American doctrine prohibiting legislative action from affecting past controversies in the manner suggested by the petitioners. The absence of an express retrospective amendment to the procedural sections did not deprive the validating provision of effect, because the Act itself declared prior acquisitions and connected acts not to be invalid merely because more than one report or declaration had been made.

Conclusion: The amendment was within legislative competence and did not fail merely because it did not expressly restate the earlier notification as retrospectively amended.

Issue (ii): whether the validating provisions violated Article 31(2) by affecting the constitutional requirement of compensation.

Analysis: The majority held that Article 31(2), as amended, bars challenge only to adequacy of compensation and not to the existence of a relevant principle. It further held that the amended law did not alter the basic compensation principle under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, namely valuation with reference to the notification under section 4, and merely permitted multiple declarations under section 6 for land covered by a single section 4 notification. The majority concluded that this did not amount to fixation of illusory or unrelated compensation and therefore was not a fraud on constitutional power.

Conclusion: There was no violation of Article 31(2).

Issue (iii): whether the classification and differential treatment created by the amendment and by the executive denotification policy violated Article 14.

Analysis: The majority held that legislative distinctions between pending and future acquisitions, and between notifications issued before and after the cut-off date, were supported by a rational basis and an intelligible classification linked to the object of the amendment. It also held that the denial of denotification to the petitioner whose layout and service plans had not both been approved before the relevant date was based on a policy distinction and not on mala fides or arbitrary discrimination.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was made out.

Final Conclusion: The majority upheld the validating amendment and rejected the constitutional challenges, with the result that the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A legislature competent to enact law on acquisition may validly validate past acquisitions and connected proceedings, and such validation will stand so long as it does not introduce an irrelevant or arbitrary principle of compensation or an irrational classification offending the Constitution.

Dissenting Opinion: Shelat J. held that section 4 of the validating Act was invalid because it sought to sustain acquisitions on the basis of an exhausted section 4 notification without truly reviving that notification by retrospective amendment, and because it in substance fixed compensation by reference to a dead date, thereby offending Article 31(2). On that view, the petitions should have been allowed.

---