Constitutional law - II

The fact of this problem is there is a two proceeding for acquisition of property .out of two one
is for owner and other is onerous . the state utilizes the onerous one by passing a retropestive
act . the one of the main features of the legistrative power in india . for example validation act in
the above mentioned case also there is a us of retrospectivity act . There are certain guidelines or
limitation .

1. No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time
of the commission of the act charged as an offence that is article 20 (1).

2. It should not be discriminatory ,fair and reasonable .

 Relevant Cases
 State of Mysore v D Achiah Chetty AIR 1969 SC 477;
 State of TN v Arooran Sugar Mills Ltd. Air 1997 SC 1815.

 State of Mysore v D Achiah Chetty AIR 1969 SC 477;

In the case of state of Mysore v Achiah chetty In Mysore  there were two Acts bearing  on
acquisition  of private  land for public purposes, namely, the  Mysore  Land Acquisition  Act,
1894, and City of  Bangalore  Improvement Act,  1945.   A notification under s. 4 of the  Mysore
Land Acquisition  Act,  1894, was issued for acquisition  of  the respondents’  plots  in
Bangalore .  The  procedure  in  the Acquisition   Act   is  a  shortened  procedure   which   is
prejudicial   to  the  owner  of  property  acquired. and that the notifications issued following the
more prejudicial procedure   in   the  Mysore  Land  Acquisition   Act   were unconstitutional  as
that Act was  discriminatory that is violation of article 14 . In this judgment acquisation hit by
aricle 14 cannot be validated unless reasonable classification is made that is there is a
unreasonable classification of acquisition of land and validating act is ineffective for that
reason a discrimination arising from selection of one law for action rather than the other, when
two procedures are available, can never be righted by removing retrospectively one of the
competing laws from the field is wrong . The Validating Act goes further and says that all the
acqui- sitions shall not be called in question on the ground that the State Government was not
competent to make the acquisition. No claim based upon the failure to observe the Improvement
Act can, therefore, be heard. The State relies upon thelast six words of the first clause of s. 2(1)
of the Validation Act to contend further, that theacquisition cannot be called in question on any
ground whatsoever except in so far as door for objections is kept open by the second sub-section.

 State of TN v Arooran Sugar Mills Ltd. Air 1997 SC 1815.

The fact of the case is The respondent, a public limited company which owned and possessed
3421.14 acres of land, was engaged in composite and integrated activity of raising sugarcane on
the aforesaid land and crushing it in its sugar factor. And the notice was released in the public
gazette .A ceiling of 30 standard acres of agricultural land was fixed as the maximum holding.
Under the Principal Act there was provision for grant of Exemption to the lanoved by the
tamilnadu government .  The minimum compensation payable for excess Lands vesting in the
Government was 9 times of the net annual income. As such when the respondent filed its return
on 6.4.1972, it was entitled to compensation at the rare of 9 times of the net annual income. The
amended act 7 of 1974 the principle act says that this act cannot be questioned unless it is
violating the article 14 or the fundamental rights . In the judgment of the case the court held 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. And this act was received the consideration of the president so it shall
not be deemed as a void act that take away the rights of article 31-c and article 13 and the main
thing is the it was brought as per derivative state policy so the 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. The land is vested by the sugar factory it is responsible only for
claiming the compensation amount only . 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 judicial
 CONCLUTION

As we mentioned above the one of the most important limitation is the validity act should
not be violate article 14 or in discriminatory but in above mentioned cases article 14 is
violated but the court held that no challenged is available for the respondent in both the
cases . And the person was vested the land to the government so he can claim only the
compensation

By
CHARRAN SA
BC0180010