TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (10) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncipal Act) was published in the Tamil Nadu government Gazette on 2.5.1962. According to the said Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres of agricultural land was fixed as the maximum holding. Under Section 18(1) of the principal Act, the surplus land has to be notified as required for public purposes and on such publication in view of Section 18(3) of the Act land specified in the notification shall deemed to have been acquired for a public purpose and shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date of such publication and all right, title and interest of all persons in such land shall be deemed to have been extinguished. The relevant part of Section 18 of the Act is as follows:- 18. Acquisition of surplus land.-(1) After the publication of the final statement under section 12 or 14, the Government shall, subject to the provisions of sections 16 and 17, publish a notification to the effect that the surplus land is required for a public purpose. (2).............................. (3) On the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the land specified in the notification toget....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held by the respondent. Possession over such excess land were taken over by the state Government between 6.4.1973 and 26.4.1973. The Draft Compensation Assessment Roll was published by the state Government on 5.12.1973 determining the amount payable to the respondent in respect of the surplus lands applying the rate of 2 times the net annual income. On 15.2.1974, The Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land ) Sixth Amendment Act 1972 (Act 7 of 1974) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Subsection( 2) of Section 3 of Act 7 of 1974 amended subsection (3) of section 18 of the principal Act on and from 1.3.1972. The relevant part thereof is as follows:- "3(2) in section 18 of the principal Act,- (a) in sub-section (3), for the words "with effect from the date of such publication," The words "with effect from the date of the commandment of this Act," had been substituted: (b)................................ .. (c)................................ .... The effect of substitution of sub-section (3) of section 18 of the principal Act shall be that whereas under the origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid, before the High Court which was admitted by the High Court. It may be pointed out that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-state, could not explain as to what was the purpose of enacting Act 7 of 1974 aforesaid and what object it purported to achieve. He simply stated that later the legislature itself restored the original position by enacting Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling on Land) Amendment Act 78 (Act 25 of 1978). Section 4 of that Act is as follows: "4. Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, as subsequently modified, to have effect subject to modifications-The Principal Act, shall, on and from the 1st day of march 1972, have effect as if, - (1) in section 18 of the principal Act,- (a) in sub-section (3), for the words "with effect from the date of the commencement of this Act," the words "with effect from the date of such publication" had been substituted: (b)................................ ....... (c) sub-section (3-A) had been omitted. .................................." In view of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government (1) of section 18 of the principal Act has been published, the surplus land specified in such notification shall be deemed to have vested in the state Government, with effect from the date of such publication only, and accordingly the provisions of the principal Act, as modified by section 4 of this Act, shall for all purposes apply and be deemed always to have been applied in respect of such surplus lands so vested; and (b) all acts done and proceedings taken by any officer or authority under the principal Act, on the basis that compensation in respect of surplus lands referred to in clause (a) shall be payable only according to the rates specified in schedule III of the principal Act, as in force on the date of publication of the said notification, shall, for all purposes be deemed to be and to have always been validly Section 4 of this Act had been in force at all material times when such acts or proceedings were done or taken." As already mentioned the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1464 of 1974 claiming compensation applying the multiple of 9 times instead of 2 times and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-obstante clause with deeming fiction saying that notwithstanding anything contained in the Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Sixth Amendment Act 1972 (Act 7 of 1974) or any judgment, decree or order of any court, sub-section (2) of section 3 of the aforesaid 1972 Act shall be omitted and shall be deemed always to have been omitted. Section 6 thereof said that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court where before the date of the publication of the said Act in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette a notification under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the principal Act had been published the surplus lands specified in such notification ' shall be deemed to have vested in the state Government with effect from the date of such publication only.........' and the provisions of the principal Act as modified by section 4 of Act 25 of 1978 shall for all purposes apply and be deemed always to have applied in respect of such surplus lands so vested and compensation in respect of surplus land shall be paid only according to the rates specified in Schedule III of the principal Act as in force on the date of the publication such notification.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 134 of 1980 and civil appeal Nos. 352-354 of 1980 are directed against the aforesaid judgments dated 8.10.1976 and 20.7.1979. In this background, it has to be examined whether sections 4, 5 and 6 of Act 25 of 1978 with non-obstante clause and deeming provisions have taken away the effect of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court dated 8.10.1976 directing the appellant-state to apply 9 times multiple in view of the amendments introduced by Act 7 of 1974. The other aspect is as to whether in view of the provisions aforesaid of Act 25 of 1978, this Court while considering the appeal against aforesaid judgment dated 8.10.1976 in writ petition No. 1464/74 has now to proceed as if the amendments in the principal Act by Act 7 of 1974 had never been introduced. There is no dispute in respect of legislative competence of legislature to enact Act 25 of 1978. The only dispute is whether provisions of that Act has achieved the achieved the desired result. Sections 5 and 6 of Act 25 of 1978 contain deeming fiction in its different clauses while purporting to omit and remove the amendments which had been introduced by Act 7 of 1974 in the principal Act. The role of a provision in a statut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect of vesting in the state Government the surplus lands specified in any notification published under sub-section (1) of the said section 18 of the principal Act on or after the 2nd May 1962 and before the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, from a date earlier to the date of the publication of the notification under the said sub-section (1) and shall be deemed always to have had the effect of Vesting in the state Government such surplus lands, only with effect from the date of the publication of such notification.' The legislature by different deeming clauses and through statutory fiction requires the Court to treat that amendments so introduced by Act 7 of 1974 had never been introduced in the principal Act. The power of the legislature to amend, delete or obliterate a statute or to enact a statute prospectively or retrospectively cannot be questioned and challenged unless the court is of the view that such exercise is in in violation of Article 14 of the constitution. It need not be impressed that whenever any Act or amendment is brought in force retrospectively or any provision of the Act is deleted retrospectively, or any provision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the constitution retrospectively regarding conditions of service. So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the provisions of Act 25 of 1978 do not purport to effect any vested or acquired right. It only restores the position which existed when the principal Act was in force. By notification dated 4.4.1973 issued under section 18(1) of the Act as it stood prior to amendment introduced by Act 7 of 1974, 3414.87 acres of land had been declared as surplus which vested in the state Government under section 18(3) of the principal Act as it stood on that date. It can be said that Act 25 of 1978 simply nullifies Act 7 of 1974 which had made amendments in the principal Act after notification gad been issued under section 18(1) and vesting had taken place under section 18(3) of the principal Act as it stood prior to enactment Act 7 of 1974. By Act 7 of 1974 futile attempt had been made by introducing different amendments. in this process not only it created anomaly in the principal Act, but nothing purposeful was achieved. It is true that because of the amendments introduced by that Act 7 of 1974, the respondent could urge before the High Court that as the vesting had taken pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich vested in the State Government under Section 18(3) of the principal Act as it stood on that date. As such the compensation has to be worked out on basis of the amendment which had been introduced in schedule III of the Act by amendment Act 39 of 1972. This Court can modify the judgement of the High Court dated 8.10.1976 taking into account No.134 of 1980 is against aforesaid judgment of the High Court dated 8.10.1976. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Section 6 of the Act 25 of 1978 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any court or other authority where before the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, a notification under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the principal Act had been published, the surplus lands specified in such notification shall be deemed to have vested in the state Government, with effect from the date of such publication only, and accordingly the provisions of the principal Act, as modified by section 4 of this Act, shall for all purposes apply and be deemed always to have been applied in respect of such surplus lands so vested. The scope of a non-obstante clause and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Krishna Chandra Gangopadhyay v. Union of India, (1975) 2 SCC 302; Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. V. State of Haryana, (1985), 4 SCC 124; Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P) Ltd. V. State of Orissa, 1987 Supp SCC 751; D. Cawasji & Co. v. state of Mysore, 1984 Supp SCC 490 and Bhubaneshwar Singh V. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 77. It is open to the legislature to remove the defect pointed out by the court or to amend the definition or any other provision of the Act in question retrospectively. In this process it cannot be said that there has been an encroachment by the legislature over the power of the judiciary. A court's directive must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that under altered circumstances such decisions could not have been given. This will include removal of the defect in a statute pointed put in the judgment in question, as well as alteration or substitution of provisions of the enactment on which such judgment is based, with retrospective effect. This is what has happened in the present case. The judgment of the High Court in writ petition No. 1464/74, dated 8.10.1976 was solely based on the amendments which had been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The state legislature, it is significant, has not overruled or set aside the judgment of the High Court. It has amended the definition of 'house' by the substitution of a new section 2(15) for the old section and it has provided that the new definition shall have retrospective effect, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority. In other words, it has removed the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court so that the decision could not have been given to the altered circumstances. If the old Section 2(15) were to define 'house' in the manner that the amended section 2(15) does, there is no doubt that the decision of the High Court would have been otherwise. In fact, it was not disputed before us that the buildings constructed by the respondent meet fully the requirements of Section 2(15) as amended by the Act of 1974. In Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath v. State of U.P, the Legislature amended the law retrospectively and thereby removed the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court of Allahabad. It was held by this Court that this was within the permissible limits and validation of the old Act by constitute an enc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Singh V. Union of India (supra) where taking note of the subsequent amendments in the concerned Act the Court came to the conclusion:- "In the present case as already pointed out above, if subsection (2) as introduced by the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act 1986 in section 10 had existed since the very inception, there was no occasion for the High Court or this Court to issue a direction for taking into account the price which was payable for the stock of code lying on the date before the appointed day. The authority to introduce sub-section (2) in section 10 of the aforesaid Act with retrospective effect cannot be questioned. Once the amendment has been introduced retrospectively, courts have to act on the basis that such provision was there since the beginning. The role of the deeming provision need not be emphasised in view of series of judgments of this court ................................... ................................... ................................... ............. In the present case, the lacuna or defect has been removed by the introduction of sub-section (2) in section 10 of the Act with retrospective effect. Sub-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court in section 3 of the impugned Act. The attention of parliament does not appear to have been drawn to the fact that the Calcutta High Court has already issued a writ of Mandamus commanding the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of Bonus for the year April 1, 1975 to March 31,1976. It appears that unfortunately the judgment of the Calcutta High Court remained almost unnoticed and the impugned Act was passed in ignorance of that judgment. Section 3 of the impugned Act or issued that the provisions of the settlement in so far as they relate to payment of annual cash bonus to class III and class IV employees shall not have any force or effect and shall not to deemed to have had any force or effect from April 1,1975 to March 31,1976 was concerned, it became crystalised in the judgment and thereafter they became entitled to enforce the writ of mandamus granted by the judgment and not any right to annual cash bonus under settlement. This right under the judgment was not sought to be taken away by the impugned Act. The judgment continued to subsist and the Life Insurance Corporation was bound to pay annual cash bonus to Class III and Class IV employees for the year April 1, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held that the effect of the judgment in the case of D.J. Bahadur had not been taken away by the Amending Act. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was also placed on the cases of Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Another, (1970) 1 SCC 509; The municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Another, etc. etc. v. The New Shrock Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. etc. etc.,(1970) 2 SCC 280. In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh V. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.,(1975) 2 SCC 274 the aforesaid judgments in the cases of Janapada Sabha Chhindwara v. The Central Provinces Syndicate Ltd. and Another (supra) and The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad and Another, etc. etc. (supra) were distinguished by pointing out: "The decisions on which the respondent relies are clearly distinguishable. In the Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad V. New Shrock Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd., the impugned provision commended the corporation to refuse to refund the amount illegally collected by it despite the orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court. As the basis of these decisions remained unchanged even after the amendment, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.4.1973 the surplus lands vested in the State Government in view of section 18(3) of the Act as it stood on that date. Thereafter, the Draft Assessment Roll had to be published applying the rate of 2 times of the net annual income. On behalf of the respondent, a stand was taken that sections 4, 5 and 6 Act 25 of 1978 shall not revive the notification dated 4.4.1973 which stood exhausted and a fresh notification had to be issued, even if the different provisions of Act 7 of 1974 shall be deemed to have been obliterated. In this connection, it may be pointed out that section 5 (b) of Act 25 of 1978 provided in clear and unambiguous terms that modification made to section 18 of the principal Act by Act 7 of 1974 "Shall be deemed never to have had the effect of vesting in the state Government the surplus lands specified in any notification published under sub-section (1) of the said section 18 of the principal Act on the after the 2nd May 1962 and before the date of publication of this Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, from a date earlier to the date of the publication of the notification under the said sub-section (1) and shall be deemed always to have had the effect of v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of the excess lands of the respondent. A copy of the writ of mandamus issued by the High Court in the said Writ Petition is on the record and the operative part thereof is as follows:- "the Respondents herein, are hereby directed to consider the determination of the compensation and the preparation of the Draft Compensation Assessment Roll under section 50{3}{a} of the Act 58 of 1961, in respect of the excess lands of the petitioner, acquired by you , in due compliance, fully and properly of the judgment of this court dated 8.10.76 and passed in W.P.Nos. 346 and 1464 of 1974 on or before 30.6.1976 and you, the second respondent herein, are hereby directed to call upon the petitioner to furnish whatever information is required on or before 30.3.1978 (which information will be supplied to you by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice) and thereupon to proceed forthwith to comply with the aforesaid directions of this Court dated 8.10.76 and passed in w.p.Nos. 346 and 1464 of 1974." It cannot be disputed that by the aforesaid order dated 3.3.1978 the High Court had not determined any right or liability inter se ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 23.6.1978 having any effect, on the special Leave Petitions which had been filed on behalf of the state giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1980 and civil Appeal Nos. 352-354 of 1980 . It may be mentioned that a plea was taken on behalf of the appellant state that as Act 25 of 1978 provides for the vesting of the land on a particular date, it shall be deemed to be law relating to agrarian reform and as such protected by Article 31-A of the Constitution. As such no challenge based on Article 14 is available to the respondent. It was stated that at the said Act had been reserved for the consideration of the president and has received his assent and as such it shall not be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by; Article 31-c which says that notwithstanding anything contained in Article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the....