State land acquisition laws and repugnancy under Article 254: mandatory Section 105-A conditions and revival limits examined.

The Madras HC examined challenges to State land acquisition enactments under Article 14, repugnancy under Article 254, presidential assent, and the operation of Section 105-A in the Central land acquisition framework. It held that differential acquisition regimes did not by themselves prove arbitrariness or manifest arbitrariness, and rejected the claim that presidential assent was granted without due consideration. The Court further held that once the Central law received assent, inconsistent State enactments became void to the extent of repugnancy and could not be revived merely by inserting them into Section 105-A without fresh re-enactment. It also treated the notification and legislative-laying requirements in Section 105-A(2) and (3) as mandatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned State enactments were liable to be struck down as arbitrary or manifestly arbitrary; (ii) Whether the President failed to apply his mind while granting assent to the Tamil Nadu amendment; (iii) Whether the State enactments became repugnant on the making of the Central land acquisition law and could be revived by insertion of Section 105-A; (iv) Whether Section 105-A(2) and (3) were mandatory and whether non-compliance vitiated the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned State enactments were liable to be struck down as arbitrary or manifestly arbitrary.

Analysis: The challenge on Article 14 was tested against the object of the State enactments and the compensation and rehabilitation framework available under them. The Court held that the mere existence of different acquisition regimes did not, by itself, establish discrimination. The enactments were not shown to be capricious, irrational, or without an adequate determining principle. The plea of manifest arbitrariness also failed because the legislative choice was supported by a discernible policy and public purpose.

Conclusion: The impugned State enactments were not struck down on the ground of arbitrariness and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the President failed to apply his mind while granting assent to the Tamil Nadu amendment.

Analysis: The materials placed before the President included the amendment proposal, explanatory notes, comparative statements, and the relevant State enactments already assented to earlier. The first Bill had been returned and the later Bill was reintroduced after curing the objections. On that footing, the Court held that the assent was not shown to have been granted without consideration of the relevant repugnancy issue.

Conclusion: The contention of non-application of mind by the President was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the State enactments became repugnant on the making of the Central land acquisition law and could be revived by insertion of Section 105-A.

Analysis: Applying Article 254, the Court held that repugnancy arises when the Parliamentary law is made, not merely when it is brought into force. Once the Central law received presidential assent, the inconsistent State enactments became void to the extent of repugnancy. The Court further held that a dead or void enactment could not be revived merely by inserting Section 105-A into the Central law and listing the State enactments in a Fifth Schedule; fresh re-enactment with proper constitutional process was required.

Conclusion: The State enactments were repugnant and void to the extent of inconsistency, and Section 105-A did not revive them.

Issue (iv): Whether Section 105-A(2) and (3) were mandatory and whether non-compliance vitiated the scheme.

Analysis: Section 105-A made the exemption subject to a notification to be issued within one year and to draft placement before the State Legislature. The Court held that the statutory language, the defined meaning of notification, and the scheme of the provision made these requirements mandatory. Government Orders were not equivalent to the required notification, and no valid notification had been issued or laid before the Legislature. The conditions precedent for the section to operate were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: Section 105-A(2) and (3) were mandatory, and non-compliance rendered the attempted application of the scheme ineffective.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded in substantial part, the challenge based on arbitrariness failed, but the State enactments could not survive the constitutional repugnancy analysis and the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 105-A were not met. The Court consequently invalidated the impugned acquisitions made after the relevant date, while preserving those lands already put to use.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later Parliamentary law in a concurrent field is assented to, inconsistent State laws become void to the extent of repugnancy, and such laws cannot be revived merely by inserting them into a later amendment without fresh re-enactment and full compliance with mandatory statutory preconditions.

---