http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: KANTHIMATHY PLANTATIONS PVT- LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1989

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  761            1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 206  1989 SCC  (4) 650        JT 1989  Supl.    255  1989 SCALE  (2)665  CITATOR INFO :  C          1991 SC2027  (9)  R          1992 SC1488  (15)

ACT:     Constitution   of   India   1950:   Article   254--State Law--Central Law--Repugnancy--Implied repeal.     Kerala  Land Acquisition Act, 1961: Pending  acquisition proceedings-Whether can be continued under the Land Acquisi- tion Act, 1894 (As amended by Central Act 68 of 1984)  after its  coming into force--Initiation of fresh procedure  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Whether necessary.

HEADNOTE:     Proceedings for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner were initiated under the Kerala Land  Acquisition Act,  1961  viz. a State law. A writ petition filed  by  the petitioner challenging the acquisition was dismissed by  the High  Court. Thereafter the Central Act I of 1894 viz.  Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984,  became applicable  to the State of Kerala. Consequently the  Kerala Act ceased to be in force. Without issuing a fresh notifica- tion  under  the Central Act, the Land  Acquisition  Officer issued notice for making the award.     The petitioner filed another petition in the High  Court for  quashing  the said notice and the  continuance  of  the proceedings  on  the  ground that in the  absence  of  fresh procedural steps envisaged by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the  award  could not be made. This petition was  also  dis- missed by the High Court.     In  this appeal on the question: whether in the  absence of  a specific provision in the Central Act 68 of 1984,  the acquisition proceedings taken under the Kerala Land Acquisi- tion Act of 1961, could be continued under the Land Acquisi- tion Act of 1894. Dismissing the appeal, the Court,      HELD: The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 as amended by the Amending Act 68 of 1984. were substantial- ly different from the provisions in the Kerala Land Acquisi- tion Act 1961. In view of the fact that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 became applicable to the 207

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

State of Kerala and in view of the repugnant provisions,  in terms  of  Article 254 of the Constitution  the  Kerala  Act stood  repealed. There is no provision made in the  Amending act  to indicate repeal of the State law but application  of Article 254 is automatic to situations where it is  applica- ble and by the operation of this Article the State Act stood repealed and the Central Act became applicable. [208F-G]     Steps taken under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act,  upto declaration  under section 6 which had been upheld  by  High Court were valid steps and there was no effacing thereof  on account of the deemed repeal of the State Act by the  Amend- ing Act of 1984. It was, therefore, open to the Land  Acqui- sition  Officer to continue the pending proceeding from  the stage  where it was at the time of coming into force of  the Central Act. [209H; 210A]     Deep  Chand  v. State of Uttar Pradesh  &  Ors.,  [1959] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 8, followed.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3999  of 1989.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  8.12.1988  Of  the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 3771 of 1985. G. Viswanatha Iyer and S. Balakrishnan for the Appellant.     P.S. Poti, M.M. Abdul Khader, R. Nambiar and N. Sudhaka- ran for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted.     The short point for consideration in this appeal direct- ed  against  the  judgment of the Kerala  High  Court  dated 8.12.1988 in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu- tion  is whether in the absence of a specific  provision  in Central Act 68 of 1984 amending the Land Acquisition Act,  1 of 1894, the acquisition proceedings taken under the  Kerala Land Acquisition Act of 1961, Act 21 of 1962, can be contin- ued under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.     The  preliminary  notification of acquisition  had  been made  on 6.5. 1980 under s. 3(1) of the Kerala  Act,  corre- sponding to s. 4(1) of 208 the  Act  of 1894. Declaration under s. 6 was  published  on 2.6.1981.  Further proceeding in the acquisition matter  was held  up on account of a challenge before the High Court  by way of a writ petition to the declaration. On 14.8.1984, the writ  petition  Was dismissed. The petitioner  has  conceded that  the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was extended  to  the State when the Amending Act of 1984 was brought into  force. On 1oth of April, 1985, the Land Acquisition Officer  issued notice  for  making of the award. The High Court  was  again approached for quashing the said notice and the  continuance of  the  proceedings on the footing that in the  absence  of fresh  steps  under s. 4(1) and  the  subsequent  procedural steps envisaged under Act 1 of 1894, the award could not  be made.  On  6.12. 1988 by the impugned order the  High  Court dismissed the writ petition.     The Legislative Entry for acquisition and requisitioning of  property  is  42 in List III of  the  seventh  Schedule. Previously,  Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List  II  of the Seventh Schedule dealt with acquisition and requisition- ing  in the respective fields. But by the Seventh  Amendment of  the Constitution in 1956 those two entries from Lists  I and II were omitted and Entry 42 in the Concurrent List  was inserted. The Amending Act of 1984 has been made in exercise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of legislative power vested in the Centre by entry 42 in the Concurrent  List. There was a State Act in Kerala  known  as the  Kerala  Land Acquisition Act of 1961 which  dealt  with acquisition and that had been legislated on the basis of the same  Entry  42. Under the Amending Act of  1984,  the  Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was substantially amended. Five  new provisions were inserted; twenty-one sections were  substan- tially altered; one section was substituted and another  was omitted.  The Act of 1984 extended the Land Acquisition  Act of 1894 to the whole of India excepting the State of Jammu & Kashmir.  The provisions were substantially  different  from the  provisions in the Kerala Act. In view of the fact  that the  Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was extended to the  whole of  India excepting one State, the Land Acquisition  Act  of 1894 became applicable to the State of Kerala and in view of the  repugnant provisions, in terms of Art. 254 of the  Con- stitution the Kerala Act stood repealed. There is no  provi- sion  made  in the Amending Act to indicate  repeal  of  the State law but application of Art. 254 is automatic to situa- tions  where  it is applicable and by the operation  of  the Article  the  State Act stood repealed and the  Central  Act became  applicable. That such is the actual position is  not challenged  by  counsel for the appellant. In fact,  in  the notes submitted to this Court that position appears to  have been accepted. 209 The  only  contention which has been advanced before  us  is that in ’the absence of a specific provision in the Amending Act of 1984 pending proceedings could not be taken over from the  stage they were at the time when the Central  Act  came into  operation  to be continued under tile Central  Act  of 1894  to  their  final stage. This  contention,  has  to  be squarely rejected and the conclusion of the High Court  must stand  affirmed.  We  may refer to  the  Constitution  Bench decision in the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1959] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 8, at page 51 of the  Report, Subba Rao, J., as he then was spoke thus:               "It is not disputed that under the proviso  to               Art. 254(2), the Parliament can repeal the law               made  by the Legislature of a State  and  that               Parliament can repeal the repugnant State  law               whether directly or by necessary  implication.               Assuming  that Parliament in the present  case               by enacting the Amending Act repugnant to  the               State  law with respect to the  same  subject-               matter  i.e., nationalisation of  road  trans-               port, impliedly repealed the State law,  would               it  have  the effect of  effacing  the  scheme               already  made?  If  there was  a  repeal,  the               provisions s. 6 of the General Clauses Act  of               1897 are directly attracted. The relevant part               of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act reads:               "Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regula-               tion made after the commencement of this  Act,               repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereaf-               ter  to  be  made, then,  unless  a  different               intention appears, the repeal shall not--                            (a) revive anything not in  force               or  existing at the time at which  the  repeal               takes effect; or                            (b) affect the previous operation               of any enactment so repealed or anything  duly               done or suffered thereunder."               The express words used in clause (b) certainly               take  in the scheme framed under the  repealed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             Act.  It was a thing duly done under  the  re-               pealed Act."      Steps taken under the Kerala Act upto declaration under s.  6  which had been upheld by the High  Court  were  valid steps and there 210 was  no effacing thereof on account of the deemed repeal  of the  State Act by the Amending Act of 1984. It  was,  there- fore,  open to the Land Acquisition Officer to continue  the pending  proceeding from the stage where it was at the  time of  coming into force of the Central Act. There are  several precedents  of this Court which support this view but it  is unnecessary  to multiply authorities to support the  obvious proposition. The  appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no  order for costs. T.N.A.                                          Appeal  dis- missed. 211