http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANANTHI AMMAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1994

BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2114            1995 SCC  (1) 519  JT 1995 (1)   247        1994 SCALE  (4)1106

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: 1.   This  appeal by special leave is filed by the State  of Tamil Nadu against the judgment and order of the High  Court of Madras dated 9th September, 1981, whereby the Tamil  Nadu Acquisition  of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act,  1978, was  struck  down as being ultravirus  the  Constitution  of India.  The High Court came to the conclusion that the  said Act  did not enjoy the protection of Articles 31-C or 31  -A and that it was violative of articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution. 2.   Learned  counsel for the appellants submitted that  the said act was not violative of Articles 14 or 19 or 300A  and that, in any event, it was protected by reason of Article  3 1-A.  Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said  Act  was violative of Article 14 inasmuch  as  it  was enacted  to acquire lands for a purpose which could as  well be  served  by the provisions of the Land  Acquisition  Act, 1894, and that comparison of the provisions of the said  Act with  those  of  the Land Acquisition Act  showed  that  the provision  of the said Act were far harsher insofar  as  the land   owner  was  concerned.   Learned  counsel   for   the respondents  also submitted that the said Act did not  enjoy the protection conferred by Article 31C notwithstanding  the declaration in that behalf contained in Section 2 thereof 3.   The  said Act contains in section 2  the    declaration aforementioned, namely, that it is enacted to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down  in  Part  IV and, in particular,  Article  46  of  the Constitution.   It is enacted to provide for acquisition  of land for Harijan Welfare Scheme. 4.   Section 3 of the said Act is the defines     ’Court’ to mean, in the City of Madras,  the  Madras City  Civil  Court and   elsewhere,  the  Subordinate  Judge’s   Court   having jurisdiction,  and if there is no such  Subordinate  Judge’s Court,  the District Court having jurisdiction.  a  "Harijan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Welfare Scheme" is defined to mean any scheme for  provision of house sites for Harijans, for constructing, extending  or improving any dwelling house for Harijans, for providing any burial  or  burning ground for Harijans, for  providing  any pathway  leading to such dwelling house, burial  or  burning ground or for providing any other 250 amenity  for the benefit of Harijans.  Sections 4,5,6 and  7 of the said Act read thus:               "4.  Power  to  acquire land   (1)  Where  the               District  Collector is satisfied that for  the               purpose  of any Harijan Welfare Scheme, it  is               necessary to acquire any land, he may  acquire               the land by publishing in the District Gazette               a notice to the effect that he has decided  to               acquire the land in pursuance of this section.               (2)   Before  publishing a notice  under  sub-               section  (1),  the District Collector  or  any                             officer  authorised by the District  Collector               in  this behalf, shall call upon the owner  or               any  other person. who, in the opinion of  the               District   Collector   or   the   officer   so               authorised  may be interested in such land  to               show cause why it should not be acquired.               (3)   (a) The District Collector may, where he               has  himself  called upon the owner  or  other               person  to  show cause under  subsection  (2),               pass  such  orders as he may deem fit  on  the               cause, so shown;               (b)   Where  any  officer  authorised  by  the               District  Collector has called upon the  owner               or  other  person  to show  cause  under  sub-               section  (2), the officer so authorised  shall               make  a report to the the  District  Collector               containing his recommendations on the cause so               shown   for  the  decision  of  the   District               Collector.  After considering such report  the               District  Collector may pass such order as  he               may deem fit.               5.    Land acquired to vest in Government free               from  all  encumbrances  When a  notice  under               sub-section  (1) of section 4 is published  in               the  District Gazette, the land to  which  the               said  notice  relates shall, on and  from  the               date on which the notice is so published  vest               absolutely  in  the Government free  from  all               encumbrances.               6.    Right  to receive amount   Every  person               having any interest in any land acquired under               this  Act shall be entitled to receive and  be               paid an amount as hereinafter provided.               7.    Determination of amount  (1) The  amount               payable in respect of any land acquired  under               this  Act  shall be the market value  of  such               land on the date of publication of the  notice               under sub-section (1)     of section 4. Section  8  sets out the matters that are to be  ignored  in determining  the amount under section 7. Section 9  entities any person who does not agree with the amount determined  by the  prescribed  authority under section 7(2) to  prefer  an appeal  to  the  "Court"  within  such  period  as  may   be prescribed.   Sub-section  (1) of section  10  requires  the prescribed  authority to determine who, in his opinion,  are entitled  to receive the amount where several persons  claim to  be  interested therein and what is payable  to  each  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

them.  Sub-section (2) states that where a dispute arises in this  behalf the prescribed authority may refer it  for  the decision  of the court and the court must in  deciding  such dispute,  follow  the  provisions of Part III  of  the  Land Acquisition Act, Section 11 reads thus:               "11.  Payment of amount  (1) After the  amount               has been determined, the prescribed  authority               shall  tender  payment of the  amount  to  the               persons  entitled thereto and shall pay it  to               them -               (i)   in  a lump-sum in a case, where it  does               not exceed two thousand rupees, and               (ii)  in  all other cases, in such  number  of               equal annual instalments not exceeding five as               may be determined  by the prescribed authority               and the amount of each such annual  instalment               shall not be less than two thousand rupees:               251               Provided that where the balance of the  amount               due  in  any  instalment  is  less  than   two               thousand rupees, only the actual amount so due               shall be paid.               (2)   If the persons entitled to the amount do               not  consent to receive it or if there  be  no               person  competent to alienate the land, or  if               there  by  any  dispute as  to  the  title  to               receive the amount or as to the  apportionment               of it, the prescribed authority shall  deposit               the  amount in the Court, and the Court  shall               deal  with  the  amount so  deposited  in  the               manner laid down in sections 32 and 33 of  the               Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central  Act1  of               1894)". Section  12 provides for payment of interest.  It says  that when the compensation amount is not paid or deposited on  or before  taking  possession  of  the  land,  the   prescribed authority  shall pay it with interest at the rate of 6%  per annum  from  the time of taking  possession  until  payment. Section 13 reads thus:               "  13.  Appeal to High Court  Subject  to  the               provisions  of  the Code of  Civil  Procedure,               1908  (Central  Act V of 1908)  applicable  to               appeals    from    original    decrees,    and               notwithstanding  anything to the  contrary  in               any  enactment for the time being in force,  a               second appeal shall lie to the High Court from               any  decision of the Court under this Act,  if               the  amount  as determined by  the  prescribed               authority   exceeds   such  sum  as   may   be               prescribed. Sections   10  states  that  the  provisions  of  the   Land Acquisition  Act,  1894, save as provided in the  said  Act, shall  cease to apply to any land which is required for  the purpose  specified  in section 4(1) and such land  shall  be acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the  said Act.  Section 22 reads thus:               "22.   Application  of  the  act  to   certain               pending  cases  of acquisition  (1)  The  pro-               visions  of this Act shall apply also  to  any               case  or cases in which proceedings have  been               started  before the commencement of  this  Act               for  the  acquisition  of  any  land  for  the               Harijan   Welfare   Scheme  under   the   Land               Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of  1894)                             (hereinafter in this section referred to as th

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

e               said  Act) but no award has been made  by  the               Collector  under  section 11 of the  said  Act               before such commencement, as if               (i)   the  notification published  under  sub-               section (1) of section 4 of the said Act, or               (ii)  the declaration made under section 6  of               the said Act, or               (iii) the notice given under sub-section               (1)   of section 9 of the said Act,               were  a  notice  to  show-cause  against   the               acquisition  of  the land  served  under  sub-               section (2) of section 4 of this Act.               (2)   Nothing  contained  in  sub-section  (1)               shall apply in relation to any land unless and               until   after  the  District   Collector   has               published a notice in the District Gazette  to               the effect that the said land is required  for               the purpose specified in  sub-section   (1) of               section 4 of this Act. 5.   It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that no enquiry by section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act was contemplated by the said Act. whereas it was the  Government which  was required to consider objections and the need  for acquisition and make a declaration thereafter that the  land was required for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act.   It  was,  under the said Act, left  to  the  District Collector to be satisfied that the land was required for the purpose of a Harijan 252 Welfare  Scheme.  No enquiry into the value of the land  was contemplated  under  the said Act inasmuch  as  a  provision equivalent to section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was not to  be found in the said Act.  Whereas the Land  Acquisition Act set out the matters that were required to be  considered for the purposes of award of compensation there was no  such provision in the said Act.  The said Act did not provide for a  reference  to  the  court  in  regard  to  a  claim   for enhancement  of compensation in the manner of section 18  of the land Acquisition Act; it provided only for an appeal  to the court and, having regard to the terms of section 9, that appeal  was  restricted to the amount  of  solatium  payable under section 7(2) of the said Act.  Section 11 of the  said Act  provided for the payment of the compensation amount  in instalments  in the event that the amount  thereof  exceeded Rs.2,000/-. Section 13 of the said Act provided for a second appeal to the High Court only if the amount as determined by the  prescribed  authority  exceeded such sum  as  might  be prescribed.   This  sum,  it may be mentioned,  was  at  the relevant time Rs. 50,000/-, which was the amount  prescribed for  the  purpose of all second appeals to  the  High  Court under the rules for the purpose. 6.   In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 599, a Constitution Bench held that Article 14 does not  authorise the striking down of the law of one State  on the  ground that, in contrast with the law of another  State on the same subject, its provisions are discriminatory,  nor does  it  contemplate the law of the Center or  of  a  State dealing   with  similar  subjects  being  held  to  be   un- constitutional  by  a process of comparative  study  of  the provisions of the two.  The sources of authority for the two being different, Article 14 can have no application. In Sant Lal Bharti v. State of Punjab. (1988) 2 S.C.R. 107, this was reiterated. 7.   When  a  statute is impugned under Article14  what  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

court  has to decide is whether the statute is so  arbitrary or  unreasonable  that it must be struck down.  At  best,  a statute  upon a similar subject which derives its  authority from  another source can be referred to, if  its  provisions have  been held to be reasonable or have stood the  test  of time, only for the purpose of indicating what may be said to be  reasonable  in the context.  We proceed to  examine  the provisions of the said Act upon this basis. 8.   Sub-section (1) of section 4 empowers   the    District Collector, if he is satisfied that   it  is   necessary   to acquire  some  land for the purpose of  an  Harijan  Welfare Scheme,  to acquire that land by publishing in the  District Gazette  a  notice  to the effect that  he  has  decided  to acquire  it  in pursuance of section 4. Sub-section  (2)  of section  4  obliges the District Collector  or  any  officer authorised  by him in this behalf to call upon the owner  or any  other  person  who,  in the  opinion  of  the  District Collector  or  the officer so authorised, is  interested  in such  land  to  show cause why it should  not  be  acquired. Where  the District Collector has called upon the  owner  or other person to show cause under subsection (2), clause  (a) of sub-section (3) requires him to pass orders on the  cause so  shown.   Where  an officer authorised  by  the  district Collector has called upon the owner or other person to  show cause  under  sub-section  (2),  clause  (b)  of  section  3 requires  that officer to report to the  District  Collector his recommendations on the 253 cause  so  shown and the District Collector is  required  to pass  such orders as he may deem fit after  considering  the report.   Sub section (2) of section 4,  therefore,  obliges the acquiring authority to serve notice upon the land  owner and other persons interested in the land to shown cause  why it should not be acquired.  By reason of sub-section (3)  of section  4,  such  cause has to be taken  into  account  and orders passed in respect thereof It is only thereafter  that the acquiring authority can arrive at the satisfaction  that it is necessary to acquire the land.  The provisions of sec- tion 4, therefore, substantially encapsulate the  provisions of  section  4 to 6 of the Land Acquisition  Act,  the  only major  difference being that, under the said Act, it is  the District Collector and not the State Government who must  be satisfied that the land is-required to be acquired.  It does not  appear  to  us  that  this  is  a  provision  which  is unreasonable or arbitrary. 9.By  reason  of  section 5, the land in  respect  of  which notice  under section 4(1) is published vests absolutely  in the   State  Government  on  and  from  the  date  of   such publication.   Every person having an interest in such  land is,   by   reason  of  section  6,   entitled   to   receive compensation.  Section 12 says that where the amount thereof is  not  paid  or  deposited on  or  before  the  taking  of possession  of the land, interest thereon is payable at  the rate  of 6% per annum from the time of taking of  possession until payment or deposit. 10.Section  7 states that the amount payable in  respect  of land  that  is  acquired under the said Act  "Shall  be  the market value of such land on the date of publication of  the notice under sub-section (1) of section 4".  What is payable as compensation is the market value of the land and it is to be  determined  as  on the date on which  the  notice  under section 4(1) is published.  To that extent the provisions of the  said  Act  are more favorable than those  of  the  Land Acquisition Act for, under that statute, market value as  on the  date of the Section 4 notification is payable,  not  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

the date of the Section 6 notification. 11.It  is true that the said Act provides for matters  which are to be ignored in determining the amount under section  8 but  does  not make provision, as the Land  Acquisition  Act does,  in  determining the amount.  It has, however,  to  be realised  that the concept of market value and how it is  to be  determined is well established. In State of  Gujarat  v. Shantilal  Mangaldas & Ors. (1969) 3 S.C.R. 341, this  Court said,  "Specification  of principles within the  meaning  of Article  31(2)  as it then read means  laying  down  general guiding  rules  applicable to all  persons  or  transactions governed   thereby.    Under  the   Land   Acquisition   Act compensation is determined on the basis of "market value" of the land on the date of the notification under section  4(1) of   the  Act.   That  is  a  specification  of   principle. Compensation  determined  on  the  basis  of  market   value prevailing  on a date anterior to the date of extinction  of interest is still determined on a principle specified".   It is,  therefore,  of no great consequence that the  said  Act does  not go on to specify what is to be taken into  account in  determining the amount payable as compensation for  land that is acquired thereunder. 12.Sub-section  (1) of section 7, as aforesaid, states  that the  amount payable in respect of the land that is  acquired under the said Act shall be its market value 254 on the date of publication of the notice under section 4(1). Sub-section (2) of section 7 states that, in addition to the market value of the land, the prescribed authority shall  in every case award a sum of 15 per centum on such market value as solatium in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.   Sub-section (3) of Section 7 states that  the prescribed manner, determine by order the amount payable un- der  sub-section (1) and a copy of the said order  shall  be communicated  to  the owner of such land  and  every  person interested  therein.   The purport of section 7, read  as  a whole,  is that the market value of the land is  payable  as compensation and subsection (3) states that the market value shall  be determined after holding an  inquiry  contemplates notice to the owner and other person interested in the  land and  consideration of their claims for compensation and  the basis  thereof,  namely,  the evidence  they  adduce.   Upon determination of the market value of the land after inquiry, the prescribed authority is obliged under sub-section (2) of section  7 to award as compensation for the acquisition  the market value and as additional 13% as solatium. 13.An  appeal is prescribed under section 9 to the court  by any person who does not agree with the amount determined  by the  prescribed authority "under sub-section (7) of  section 7".  It was argued that the appeal was limited to the  award of solatium and that, therefore, there was no appeal against the  determination of market value and no reference  to  the court in that behalf in the manner of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.  We do not think sections 7 and 9 may be so read as to render section 9 an absurdity.  As aforesaid,  it is  the  obligation of the prescribed authority  under  sub- section  (2) of section 7 to award the market value  of  the land  plus  15%  as solatium.  The  appeal  contemplated  by section  9 is, therefore in respect of the award in  respect of the land which comprises its market value and solatium. 14.  That  no  reference  as  in  Section  18  of  the  Land Acquisition Act in regard to the amount of compensation  for land that is acquired is provided for does not, in our view, make the said Act unreasonable.  Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act the award is no more than an offer.  If

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the  land owner of other person interested in the land  does not  accept  the offer, section 18 gives him  the  right  of having  the  compensation amount decided by the  court  (See Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer.  (1962)  1  S.C.R. 676.)  In  the  reference  court compensation  has  to  be  established.  (See  Periyar   and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala. (1991) 4  S.C.C. 195.)  The record before the Collector does not  ipso  facto become  the record of the reference court.  In the  case  of the said Act an appeal is provided under section 9 from  the award,  that is,the market value of the land  and  solatium, under  section  7.  The  market  value  is  required  to  be determined. by reason of sub-section (3) of section 7,  upon an  enquiry  as hereinabove explained.  The  land  owner  or other  person  interested in the land  has,  therefore,  the opportunity  to establish its market value before  the  pre- scribed  authority.  Such evidence as he places  before  the prescribed  authority  becomes a part of the record  of  the court  in appeal under section 5. The court in appeal  under section  9 would also, in appropriate cases, have the  right to call for additional evidence. 15.  The provisions of section 13 of the 255 Act  provide  for a second appeal to the  High  Court.   The second  appeal lies only if to amount as determined  by  the prescribed  authority exceeds such sum as may be  prescribed The sum prescribed appears to be the sum which is  otherwise prescribed  in  regard to all second appeals.  There  is  no obligation  to provide for a second appeal in all cases  and there is, therefore, no unreasonableness in this behalf 16.In the event that the court in appeal under section 9  or the  High Court in second appeal under section  13  enhances the  compensation  amount  the power to  award  interest  as prescribed in section 12 is implicit. 17.Section  11 has already been quoted.  By reason  of  sub- section (1) thereof, payment of the compensation amount  can be  made  in a lump sum only where it does  not  exceed  Rs. 2000/.   In all other cases it must be made in equal  annual instalments  not exceeding five, but so that the  amount  of each annual instalment is not less than Rs. 2,000/-.  In our view,  the  provision  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  the compensation amount by instalments in this manner is  wholly unreasonable.  the  owner  of the  land  or  another  person interested therein would require compensation in lieu of the land  forth  with to re-establish himself whether in  a  new residence  or another piece of agricultural land  or  other- wise.   The  provisions of the section in  this  behalf  are clearly  severable.   The said Act can stand even  when  the provisions  in  regard to the payment  of  the  compensation amount by instalment excised.  To the extent that  section11 provides  for payment of compensation by instalments  it  is ultravirus  Article  14.  The provisions  of  section  11(1) subsequent to the words "in a lump-sum" must, therefore,  be struck down. 18.Section 20 of the said Act states that the provisions  of the land Acquisition Act, save as expressly provided in  the said Act,shall cease to apply to any land which is  required for  the  purpose specified in section 4(1)  and  such  land shall be acquired only ’in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.  Consequently, section 22 makes the provisions of  the said Act applicable also to cases in which  proceed- ings  have been started before the commencement of the  said Act  under  the  Land Acquisition Act  for  the  purpose  of Harijan Welfare Schemes, provided that judgment under appeal striking down the said Act was delivered no award have  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

made   under   the  Land  Acquisition  Act.    We   see   no unreasonableness  in  this  provision,  particularly  having regard  to the terms of section 20.  We must, however,  take account  the  fact that the judgment under  appeal  striking down the said Act was delivered as far as back as  September ,  198 1, and no stay thereof, was obtained from the  court. It  is  likely, therefore, that in cases  where  proceedings under  the Land Acquisition Act had already been started  to acquires lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes, they might  have been   revived  and  completed  in  the  interregnum.    We, therefore,  make it clear that the provisions of section  22 shall  have no effect in such cases where awards  have  been made. 19.  In  the  result, we do not find the provisions  of  the said  Act,  except for the provision as  to  instalments  in section 11. violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution  of  India, It is,  therefore,  unnecessary  to consider  whether or not the said Act has the protection  of article 256 31-C of the Constitution. 20.The  appeal is allowed in part.  The judgment  and  order under  appeal  is set aside.  Except for  the  provision  of Section  11 (1) of the said Act insofar as they provide  for payment of the compensation amount in instalments, the  said Act  is  intra vires the constitution.  Section  11  (1)  is valid only to this extent:               "11.  Payment of amount- (1) After the  amount               has been determined, the prescribed  authority               shall  tender  payment of the  amount  to  the               person  entitled  there to and  shall  pay  it               them-               (1) in a lump-sum." The rest of Section 11 (1) is ultra vires the Constitution. Civil Appeal 4461 of 1964 3978-4302 of 1990 & 2114 of 1991. 21.There  civil  appeals arise out of orders of  the  Madras High Court that, following the judgment dated 9th September, 1981,  aforementioned,  struck down the  said  Act.   Having regard  to  the discussion set out above, we have  held  the said  Act to be valid legislation, except in so far  as  the provisions of Section 11 (1) thereof require the payment  of the  compensation amount in instalments.  For the same  rea- sons,   these  appeals  are  set  aside.   Except  for   the provisions  of section 11 (1) of the said Act in so  far  as they  provide  for  payment of the  compensation  amount  in instalments,  the said Act is intra vires the  constitution. Section 11(1) is valid only to this extent:               "11.   Payment of amount (1) After the  amount               has been determined, the prescribed  authority               shall  tender  payment of the  amount  to  the               persons  entitled thereto and shall pay it  to               them-               (1) in a lump sum." The rest of Section 11 (1) is intra vires the Constitution. Civil appeal(Nos.) 7886-7891 of 1994 (Arising out of  S.L.P. (c) Nos. 16729- 34 of 1983. 22.  Leave granted. 23.  The  judgment and order of the Madras High Court  under appeal in these civil appeals, following the  aforementioned judgment   dated  9th  September,  1981,  struck  down   the provisions  of chapter VI of the Tamil Nadu Slum  clearance. The provision of chapter VI are substantially similar to the provisions  of the said Act, that is to say the  Tamil  Nadu Acquisition  of  Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme  Act,  1978 except that by reason of Section 21, no solatium is  payable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

to  the land owner whose land is acquired.  The Madras  High Court, relying on the judgment dated 9th September, 1981  in relation to the said Act, found the provisions of chapter VI to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and struck them own. 24.  We have held the provisions of the said Act to be intra vires  the Constitution, except in regard to  the  provision for payment of the compensation amount in instalments.   The Slum  Clearance  Act  does not provide for  payment  of  the compensation amount in instalments. 25.  That  no solatium is payable under the  Slum  Clearance act does not, in our view, make any substantial  difference. In Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of 257 Gujarat  &  Ors. (1985) Suppl. 3 SCR  1025,  a  Constitution Bench  held  that it could not be said as a  rule  that  the State,  which has to supply and maintain large  public  ser- vices  at  great  cost, should always pay,  in  addition  to reasonable  compensation for acquired land, some  amount  by way  of  solatium: the interest of the  public  was  equally important.   It is, to our mind, not unreasonable  that  the State  should not have to pay solatium in  consideration  of the  compulsory  nature of the acquisition of land  that  is slum land. 26.  In  the  result,  the  appeals  are  allowed  and   the provisions of Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act are  held to be intra vires the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. 7885 of 1994 (Arising out of &L.P. (C)  No. 16989 of 1991: 27.  Leave granted. 28.  This  is an appeal by the owner of land whose land  was sought  to  be  acquired under the provisions  of  the  Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of a Harijan Welfare  Scheme after  the  coming into force of the said Act, that  is  the Tamil  Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare  Scheme Act, 1978 the appellant filed a writ petition in the  Madras High  Court  for a direction to the State to for  bear  from continuing  with the proceedings under the Land  Acquisition Act  having  regard to the provisions of Section 20  of  the said Act which required that for such purpose land could  be acquired only in accordance with the provisions of the  said Act.   The learned single Judge dismissed the writ  petition and  the Division Bench the appeal filed therefrom, both  on the   ground  that  said  Act,  had  been  struck  down   as unconstitutional.  Hence this appeal. 29.  We have held the provisions of the said Act to be valid legislation except in so far as they provide for payment  of the compensation amount in instalments.  The said Act  being valid  legislation,its  provisions preclude the  State  from acquiring  land for the purpose of a Harijan Welfare  Scheme under  the Land Acquisition Act.  The appeal is allowed  and the  proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act  to  acquire the  appellant’s land for the purpose of a  Harijan  Welfare Scheme are, therefore, quashed and set aside. 30.  In all these civil appeals each party shall  bear   and pay its own costs. 259