Goa Foundation Vs State of Goa
|
Head Note
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254 , The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 41
Section 41 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 (Goa Act 7 of 2009) - Land Acquisition - Validity of Provision - Validity of Section 41(6) to (9) introduced in the Principal Act by the Goa State Amendment - Challenge as to - Ground that the impugned legislation is repugnant to Central Legislation - Section 41 of the Principal Act and the terms of the agreement executed thereunder (even if the latter is understood to be 'Law' enacted by the competent legislature for the purpose of Article 254) are silent with regard to modification/variation or deletion/subtraction of the terms of the agreement - State Amendment Act by bringing in Sub-sections (6) to (9) of Section 41 invalidates a clause of the agreement [Clause 4(viii)] by effecting a deletion thereof with retrospective effect i.e. 15.10.2023 (the date of coming into operation of the Principal Act to the State of Goa) - State Amendment, by no means, sets the law in a collision course with the Central/Principal enactment - Rather, it may seem to be making certain additional provisions to provide for something that is not barred under the Principal Act - Moreover, if the provisions of the State Amendment are to be tested on the anvil of the finding of this Court that the acquisition in the present case is under Section 40(1)(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act, the deletion of the relevant clause of the agreement as made by the said amendment may appear to be really in furtherance of the purpose of the acquisition under the Central Act - Do not find any repugnancy between the Principal Act and the State Amendment, as urged on behalf of the petitioners in this case.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 41
Section 41 (as amended by Land Acquisition (Goa Amendment) Act, 2009 (Goa Act 7 of 2009) - Land Acquisition - Validity of Provision - Validity of Section 41(6) to (9) introduced in the Principal Act by the Goa State Amendment - Challenge as to - Ground that the impugned legislation seeks to nullify the directions given in the judgment of the Apex Court dated 20.1.2024 - Amendment renders ineffective Clause 4(viii) of the Agreement executed by the parties under Section 41 of the Principal Act - With Clause 4(viii) being deleted the embargo on constructions on the acquired land is removed - It is the aforesaid Clause 4(viii) and its legal effect, in view of Section 42, that was the basis of the Court's decision dated 20th January, 2009 holding the construction raised by the third respondent on the acquired land to be illegal and contrary to the Principal Act - Once Clause 4(viii) is removed the basis of the earlier judgment stands extinguished - In fact, it may be possible to say that if Clause 4(viii) had not existed at all, the judgment of the Court dated 20th January, 2009 would not have been forthcoming - It was therefore well within the domain of the legislature to bring about the Amendment Act with retrospective effect, the Legislative field also being in the Concurrent List, namely, Entry No. 42 of List III (Acquisition and Requisition of Property) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Validity of Provision