KANTHIMATHY PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

             KANTHIMATHY PLANTATIONS PVT. LID.
A
                                        v.
                       STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

                           SEPTEMBER 19, 1989

B             [RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]

         Conititution of India 1950: Article 254--State Law-Central
    ,Law-Repugnancy-Implied repeal.

          Kera/a Land Acquisition Act, 1961: Pending acquisition prO'
C ceedings-Whether can be continued under the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 (As amended by Central Act 68 of I984) after its coming into
    force-Initiation of fresh procedure under the Land Acquisition Act,
     1894--Whether necessary.

        Proceedings for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner
D were initiated nuder 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 notification under the Central Act,
E the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice for making the award.
          The petitioner filed another petition in "the High Court for quash-
    ing the said notice and the continua11ce 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
f   also dismissed 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 Acquisition Act of 1961, could be con-
    tinued under the Land Acquisition 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 substantially different
    from ~lie erovisioits In the Kera la Land Acquisition Ad. 1961. In view 1of
iii the fact that lhe Land Acquisition Act of 1894 became applicable to ihe
                                        ZOti
           K. PLANTATIONS v. STATE OF KERALA [MISRA, J.I             207

State of Kerala and in view of the repugnant provisions, in terms of A
Article 254 of the Constitution the Kerala Act stood repealed. There is
no provision made in the Amending act to i.ndicate repeal of tile State
law but application of Article 254 is automatic to situations where it is.
applicable -and by the operation of thlS Article the State Act stood
repealed and the Central Act became applicable. [208F-G]
                                                                           B
      Steps taken under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act; opto declara•
lion 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 Amending Act of 1984. It was, therefore, open to
the Land Acquisition Officer to continue the pending proceeding from
the stage where it was at the time of coming inio force of the Centra'
Act. [209H; 2IOA] .                                                        c
     Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1959] Suppl. 2
S.C.R. 8, followed.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3999                  D
of 1989.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.1988 of the Kerala
High Court in O.P. No. 3771of1985.

      G. Viswanatha Iyer and S. Balakrishnan for the Appellant.            E,

      P.S. Poti, M.M. Abdul Khader, R. Nambiar and N. Sudhakaran
for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                           F
      RA:"llGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted.

      The short point for consideration in this appeal directed against
the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 8.12.1988 in a writ
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is whether in the absence of
a specific provision in Central Act 68 of 1984 amending the Land           G
Acquisition Act, 1 of 1894, the acquisition proceedings taken under
the Kerala Land Acquisition Act of 1961, Act 21 of 1962, can be
continued 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,~orresponding to s. 4(1) of       H
                                                                               j

                                                                               j

    208         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   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
B
    into force. On 10th 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
c   Court dismissed the writ petition.

          The Legislative Entry for acquisition and requisitioning of pro-
    perty 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 requisitioning in the respective fields. But by the
D 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·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
R 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 subs.tituted 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 provi-
F sions 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 Acquisi-
    tion Act of 1894 became applicable to the State of Kerala and in view
    of the repugnant provisions, in terms of Art. 254 of the Constitution
    the 'Kerala Act stood repealed. There is no provision made in the
G Amending Act to indicate repeal of the State law but application of
     Art. 254 is automatic to situations 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 chal-
     lenged by counsel for the appellant. In fact, in the notes submitted to
Ill this Court that position appears to have been accepted.
           K. PLANTATIONS v. STATE OF KERALA !MISRA, J.]               209

       The only contention which has been advanced before u.s is that in
                                                                              A
·the absence of a specific provision in the Amending Act of 1984 pend-
 ing 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 the 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       B
 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           c
            State law whether directly or by necessary implication. As-
            suming 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         D
            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 Regulation            E
                 made after the commencement of this Act, repeals
                 any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be
                 made, then, unless a different intention appears, the
                 repeal shall not-

                       (a) revive anything not in force or existing at        F
                 the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

                      (b) affect the previous operation of any enact-
                 ment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered
                · thereunder."
                                                                              G
           The express words used in clause (b) certainly take in the
           scheme framed under the repealed Act. It was a thing duly
           done under the repealed Act."

     Steps taken under the Kerala Act upto declaration under s. 6
which had been uphe~d by the High Court were valid steps and there            H
    210           SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A was no effacing thereof on account of the deemed repeal of the State
  Act by the Amending Act of 1984. It was, therefore, open to the Land
  Acquisition Officer to c<intinue 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
B unnecessary to multiply authorities to support the obvious proposi-
  tion.

             The appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no order for
    costs.

    T.N.A.                                               Appeal dismissed.