K. Rakkianna Gounder vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department and The Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare)

A.K. Ganguly, C.J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and also learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20th August, 2008 passed by the learned Judge of the writ Court. In the said order, learned

Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition, which was filed to declare Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare

Scheme Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ""T.N. Act 31 of 1978"") as null and void and consequently to enforce Section 18 and 28(A) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in that place.

Learned Judge, after considering the submissions made by the parties, held that Section 9 of the T.N. Act 31 of 1978 is not in direct conflict

with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act of 1894) and dismissed the writ petition. For coming to the said conclusion, learned

Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and Others, and

held that when the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the statute, it is not necessary again to consider the vires or repugnancy of Section 9 of

the Act with Section 18 and 28(A) of the Central Act.

We find that the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 as enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to provide for acquisition of land for Harijan Welfare

Scheme. In other words, the said Act has been enacted for giving effect to the Article 46 of the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. Ananthi Ammal and Others, , the

Hon''ble Supreme Court has upheld the provisions of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act only under Article 14 of

the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court did not consider the provisions of the Act in the light of Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

This Court is unable to accept the said submission. When the constitutional validity of the Act was dealt with by the Supreme Court and when

the said Act has been upheld, including Section 9 which is challenged here, a further writ petition cannot be entertained on any ground which was

not urged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Such a contention is not known to law.

Apart from that the judgment of the Supreme Court on a constitutional question, where the Supreme Court declares the law viz., the said Act, is

valid is binding on all the Courts in India including this Court. The said judgment of the Supreme Court in Ananthi Ammal''s Case (cited supra) is

the binding judgment and those questions cannot be reopened by this Court at all.

This Court finds that the learned Judges of the Supreme Court considered Section 9 in paragraph 13, 14 and 16 of the said judgment. We do

not find any constitutional invalidity in those provisions. The only infirmity found by the Hon''ble Supreme Court is the provision providing for

payment of compensation amount in installments. Rest of the Act was affirmed in toto. In view of the clear finding of the Hon''ble Supreme Court,

we are of the view that the learned Judge has taken the correct view in repelling the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Section 9 of the

said Act. The question of the State Act being repugnant to the Central Act cannot be urged in view of the fact that Presidential assent to the

provisions of the said Act was obtained from the President on 21.07.1978.

The last submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after Presidential assent has been obtained, the Central Act in respect

of land acquisition has been amended and that makes the State Act 31 of 1978 repugnant. It is a very startling proposition. This Court fails to

understand as how the amendment to Central Act would lead to the repugnancy of the State Act which has not been amended. In our view, the

arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are mis-conceived and without any substance. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.