Writ Appeal No. 3993 of 2004 · Madras High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 29.11.2004Coram: The Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief JusticeandThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.V.BALASUBRAMANIANWrit Appeal No. 3993 of 2004andW.A.M.P.No. 7496 of 2004-----------V. Kuppusamy Reddiar:: AppellantVs.

The Collector Villupuram – Ramasamy Padayatchiar District, Villupuram.

The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Tindivanam.::RespondentsAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe order passed in W.P.No. 14207 of 1996 dated 25.10.2002.For Appellant :: Mr.Ashok ViswanathFor Respondents:: Mr.V.Raghupathy Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honourable The Chief Justice)This writ appeal has been filed against the impugnedjudgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.10.2002.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the impugned judgment and other papers onrecord.

The writ petitioner had prayed for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondentand to quash the impugned notice under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare SchemesAct, 1978 (in short ‘the Act’). Under the said Act, therespondents initiated proceedings in respect of the land inquestion, as the same was required for a Harijan WelfareScheme. Notice under Section 4(2) of the Act was served in Form-I by the second respondent on the petitioner, and thepetitioner submitted his objections. The second respondentover-ruled the objections and submitted a report to thefirst respondent, who in turn observed that the objectionswere without merits and ordered acquisition of thepetitioner’s land. Accordingly, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published and an award noticewas served on the writ petitioner, after which thepetitioner came to this Court.

The learned single Judge dismissed the writpetition holding that the acquisition was not liable to beinterfered with as the provisions of Section 4(1), as wellas Section 4(2) of the Act have been followed strictly.

In this writ appeal, the learned counsel hassubmitted that the learned single Judge has not consideredone of the legal points, which was taken before the learnedsingle Judge namely, that the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 wasinvalid, as it was repugnant to the law subsequently madeby Parliament which had enacted Land Acquisition(Amendment) Act No. 68 of 94 to amend the Land AcquisitionAct 1 of 1984. Although, this point has not been discussedby the learned single Judge, in the interest of justice, wehave permitted this point to be raised before us, as it ispurely a legal and constitutional point.

The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for HarijanWelfare Scheme Act, 1978 has been upheld by the SupremeCourt in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ananthi Ammal (AIR 1995 SC2114). Section 2 of the Act states that this Act is forgiving effect to the policy of the State towards securing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the principles laid down in Part – IV of the Constitution, and in particular Article 46 of the Constitution of India.

Article 46 states:-

Promotion of Educational and economicinterests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weakersections:- The State shall promotewith special care the educational andeconomic interests of the weakersections of the people, and, inparticular, of the Scheduled Castes andthe Scheduled Tribes, and shall protectthem from social injustice and allforms of exploitation

Section 3(g) of the Act defines Harijan WelfareScheme as follows:-“Harijan Welfare Scheme” means anyscheme for provision of house-sites for Harijans for constructing, extending orimproving any dwelling-house for Harijans or for providing any burial orburning grounds for Harijans or forproviding any pathway leading to suchdwelling-house, burial or burninggrounds, or for providing any otheramenity for the benefit of Harijans” Under Section 4(1) where the District Collector issatisfied that for the purpose of a Harijan Welfare Scheme, it is necessary to acquire any land, he may acquire theland by publishing in the District Gazette a notice to theeffect that he has decided to acquire the land. Under sub-section (2) of Section 4 before publishing a notice undersub-section (1), the District Collector or any officerauthorized by him has to issue show cause notice to theowner or other interested person. Under Section 5 whennotice under Section 4(1) is published in the gazette, theland vests in the Government free from all encumbrances.

The Constitutional scheme is very clear. It aims atequality. (vide Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India). However, the Founder Fathers of our Constitution intheir wisdom realized that there were certain historicallydisadvantaged communities, which had been oppressed forthousands of years, and for whom compensatory state actionwas called for. One of these historically disadvantagecommunities are Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes andhence, special provisions were made for them in Article 15(4), 16(4), 16(4A) and other provisions in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ constitution. This was necessary otherwise thesehistorically oppressed classes would not be able to come upto the level of other classes of people, and thusinequality would continue. The Tamil Nadu Act 1978 wasobviously made with this historic situation in mind.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Tamil Nadu Act No. XXXI of 1978 may have been validinitially, but after Parliament enacted the LandAcquisition (Amendment Act, 1984) it becameunconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the LandAcquisition Act, as amended in 1984, and hence void in viewof Article 254 of the Constitution. We do not agree. In ouropinion there is no inconsistency between Tamil Nadu Act1978 and Land Acquisition Act, even after its amendment by Parliament by the Amendment Act, 1984.

It may be mentioned that the Tamil Nadu Act 1978is a special law for the welfare of harijans, whereas the Land Acquisition Act is a General Act for acquiring landfor public purpose, and it is not limited to acquiring landfor harijan welfare. It is well settled that a special Lawoverrides the general law. Hence, it cannot be said thatthe Tamil Nadu Act, 1978 is void.

Moreover, in our opinion, acquisition of land forharijan welfare is included in the definition of ‘publicpurpose’ in section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, asamended by 1984 amendment.

It may be noted that in the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in 1984, the language used is “the expression“public purpose”, includes, ……” Thus, the definition of “public purpose” is inclusive andnot exhaustive. Hence, the ‘public purposes’ mentioned inthe various sub-clauses of Section 3(f) cannot be deemed tobe the only ‘public purpose’ for which land can be acquiredunder the Land Acquisition Act.14. Apart from that, sub-clause (v) of Section 3(f)states:-

the provision of land for residentialpurposes to the poor or landless or topersons residing in areas affected bynatural calamities, or to personsdisplaced or affected by reason of theimplementation of any scheme undertakenby the Government, any local authorityor a corporation owned or controlled bythe State

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It is well known that the people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are mainly poor orlandless. They have been oppressed for thousands of yearsand all kinds of atrocities have been inflicted on them bythe so-called upper castes. It is for this reason that Compensatory State action is required to up-lift them andbring them up to the level of so-called upper castes. Inthe modern age, equality is one of the highest values anddiscrimination against Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes can no longer be tolerated if our country has toremain united and progress. Hence, the Tamil Nadu Act 1978was a salutary measure in the interest of the nation, andit cannot be said to be void after the enactment of LandAcquisition (amendment Act) 1984.