V. Kuppusamy Reddiar vs The Collector and Another

Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.10.2002.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the impugned judgment and other papers on record.

The writ petitioner had prayed for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent and to quash the impugned notice u/s 4(1) of

the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (in short ''the Act''). Under the said Act, the respondents initiated

proceedings in respect of the land in question, as the same was required for a Harijan Welfare Scheme. Notice u/s 4(2) of the Act was served in

Form-I by the second respondent on the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his objections. The second respondent over-ruled the objections

and submitted a report to the first respondent, who in turn observed that the objections were without merits and ordered acquisition of the

petitioner''s land. Accordingly, a notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published and an award notice was served on the writ petitioner, after which

the petitioner came to this Court,

The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the acquisition was not liable to be interfered with as the provisions of Section

4(1), as well as Section 4(2) of the Act have been followed strictly.

In this writ appeal, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned single Judge has not considered one of the legal points, which was taken

before the learned single Judge namely, that the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 was invalid, as it was repugnant to the law subsequently made by

Parliament which had enacted Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act No. 68 of 1984 to amend the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. Although, this

point has not been discussed by the learned single Judge, in the interest of justice, we have permitted this point to be raised before us, as it is purely

a legal and constitutional point.

The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and

Others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and Others, . Section 2 of the Act states that this Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the

principles laid down in Part-IV of the Constitution, and in particular Article 46 of the Constitution of India.

Article 46 states:

Promotion of Educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections:- The State shall promote

with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation

Section 3(g) of the Act defines Harijan Welfare Scheme as follows:

Harijan Welfare Scheme"" means any scheme for provision of house- sites for Harijans for constructing, extending or improving any dwelling-

house for Harijans or for providing any burial or burning grounds for Harijans or for providing any pathway leading to such dwelling-house, burial

or burning grounds, or for providing any other amenity for the benefit of Harijans

Under Section 4(1) where the District Collector is satisfied that for the purpose of a 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. Under sub-section (2) of

Section 4 before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the District Collector or any officer authorized by him has to issue show cause notice to

the owner or other interested person. u/s 5 when notice u/s 4(1) is published in the gazette, the land vests in the Government free from all

encumbrances.

The Constitutional scheme is very clear. It aims at equality, (vide Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution of India). However, the Founder Fathers

of our Constitution in their wisdom realized that there were, certain historically disadvantaged communities, which had been oppressed for

thousands of years, and for whom compensatory state action was called for. One of these historically disadvantage communities are Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes and hence, special provisions were made for them in Articles 15(4), 16(4), 16(4-A) and other provisions in the

constitution. This was necessary otherwise these historically oppressed classes would not be able to come up to the level of other classes of

people, and thus inequality would continue. The Tamil Nadu Act 1978 was obviously made with this historic situation in mind.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Tamil Nadu Act No. XXXI of 1978 may have been valid initially, but after Parliament

enacted the Land Acquisition (Amendment Act, 1984) it became unconstitutional, as it was inconsistent with the Land Acquisition Act, as

amended in 1984, and hence void in view of Article 254 of the Constitution. We do not agree. In our opinion there is no inconsistency between

Tamil Nadu Act, 1978 and Land Acquisition Act, even after its amendment by Parliament by the Amendment Act, 1984.

It may be mentioned that the Tamil Nadu Act, 1978 is a special law for the welfare of harijans, whereas the Land Acquisition Act is a General

Act for acquiring land for public purpose, and it is not limited to acquiring land for harijan welfare. It is well settled that a special Law overrides the

general law. Hence, it cannot be said that the Tamil Nadu Act, 1978 is void.

Moreover, in our opinion, acquisition of land for harijan welfare is included in the definition of ''public purpose'' in Section 3(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, as amended by 1984 amendment.

It may be noted that in the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in 1984, the language used is ""the expression ""public purpose"", includes,......

Thus, the definition of ""public purpose"" is inclusive and not exhaustive. Hence, the ''public purposes'' mentioned in the various sub-clauses of

Section 3(f) cannot be deemed to be the only ''public purpose'' for which land can be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.

Apart from that, sub-clause (v) of Section 3(f) states:-

the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons

displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or a corporation owned

or controlled by the State

It is well known that the people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are mainly poor or landless. They have been oppressed

for thousands of years and all kinds of atrocities have been inflicted on them by the so-called upper castes. It is for this reason that Compensatory

State action is required to up-lift them and bring them up to the level of so-called upper castes. In the modern age, equality is one of the highest

values and discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can no longer be tolerated if our country has to remain united and

progress. Hence, the Tamil Nadu Act 1978 was a salutary measure in the interest of the nation, and it cannot be said to be void after the

enactment of Land Acquisition (Amendment Act) 1984.

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.A.M.P is also dismissed.