Retrospective validation of Bangalore acquisitions displaced the Improvement Act and defeated discrimination and procedure-based challenges.

The validating enactment operated retrospectively to substitute a single acquisition regime for competing procedures and to validate past Bangalore improvement acquisitions made under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Its non-obstante and deeming provisions displaced the contrary effect of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 and authorised pending proceedings to continue under the land acquisition law. As a result, objections based on failure to follow Chapter III of the Improvement Act and alleged discrimination between classes of acquisitions failed, because the Legislature could retrospectively remove the source of differentiation. The challenge based on absence of public purpose was also not entertained after issue of the Section 6 notification.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Bangalore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act, 1962 validly removed the applicability of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 and cured the challenge that the acquisitions were discriminatory or otherwise invalid for non-compliance with that Act; (ii) whether the challenge to the acquisition on the footing of want of public purpose could survive after the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The validating enactment was treated as a retrospective legislative substitution of a single acquisition regime for the earlier competing procedures. By its non-obstante and deeming provisions, the Act validated past acquisitions made under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Bangalore improvement purposes, displaced the contrary effect of the Improvement Act, and authorised pending proceedings to continue under the acquisition law. On that basis, objections founded on failure to follow Chapter III of the Improvement Act and on alleged discrimination between differently treated classes of acquisitions were held to fail, since the Legislature was competent to remove the source of differentiation retrospectively. The attack based on absence of public purpose was also not entertained, as a Section 6 notification had already been issued.

Conclusion: The validating legislation was upheld, and the challenge to the acquisitions on the grounds of discrimination and non-compliance with the Improvement Act failed.

---