# STATE OF MYSORE &: ANR v. D. ACHIAH CHETTY ETC

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 55
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-12-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 111 to 113, 115 to 117 of 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-mysore-anr-v-d-achiah-chetty-etc-4613
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

I
c
..
D
E
F
G
H
[M.
STATE OF MYSORE &: ANR.
v.
D. ACHIAH CHETTY ETC.
December 11, 1968
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.,
J. C. SHAH,
V. RAM.\SWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
SS
The Bangalore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act (Mys. 19 of
1962). s. 2-Scope oj-Lef(islative competence to remove
discrimination retrospectively-Validating
Acts-Classification produced thereby-
!/ reasonable classification.
In Mysore there were two Acts bearing on acquisition of
private
land for public pll!"pOS!'s. namely, the Mysore Land
Acquisition Act,
1894, and City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. A
notification
under s. 4 of tho Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for
acquisition of tho respondents" plots in Bangalore. The procedure in tho
Acquisition Act is a shortened procedure which is prejudicial to the owner
of property acquired. The respondents challenged the acquisition 10 the
High ,Court on variou$ grounds and the High Court allowed the petitions.
The Stale appealed to this Court and while tho appeal was pending the
Banp!ore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act, 1962, was passed and
received the assent of the President, as required by the Constitution on
May 4, 1963, It validates all a~uisitions made, proceedinl" held, notifications issued or orders made m connection therewith, by the Stat•
Oovmum:nl purporting 10 act under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act,
before the Validating Act came into force, for the purpose of improvement, expansion or development of the City of Ban2alore.
It also provides tlmt pending proceedings may. be continued under the Mysore Land
ACQuisition Act.
The provisions
are to
be effective notwithstanding
the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, or any other law, judgment,
decree or order of anv court. Section 2(1) of the Validation Act, provides, that no order made under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act is to
be called in question on the ground that the State Government was not
competent to make acquisition for the purpose of improvement or on
any ground whatsoever, and s. 2(2) Provides that a n.otification or order
may be questioned in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore
Land Acquisition Act 'and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the rules
made thereunder.
In this Court in spite of the Validating Act the respondents sought
to support the judgment of the High Court on the grounds that : ( 1)
there were still two Acts which covered the same field but prescribed
two different procedures, and that the notifications issued following the
more prejudicial procedure in the Mysore Land Acquisition Act were
unconstitutional as that Act was discriminatory; (2) an acquisition or
anything done, previously hit by Art. 14 cannot be validated unless the
vice of unreasonable classification is removed, and so, the Validating Act
was ineffective; (3) the Mysore Land Acquisition Act and the
Land
Acquisition Act. 1894, are general laws which must give wav to the
special· law in the Improvement Act; and (4) There is still discrimination, because •. there are two classe' of cases, one, in whose case the Validating Act dispenaeo with the procedure. of the Improvement Act
and
th\ise, in whose case that procedure wi1t be followed
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969) 3 S.C.R.
HELD : ( I ) The supremacy of the Legislatur.. in India, within the
constitutional limits of
their jurisdiction is
complete.
By the
non-
.obstante clause in the Validating Act, the Improvement Act.is put out of
the way as if it were repealed or as if it had not been passed.. The Legislature has made ;retrospectively a single law for the acquisition of property
and .rendered all acquisitions, made before the Validating Act was passed,
to be 'governed by the Mysore Land Acquisition Act alone.
Objections
based on breach of Constitution or fundamental rights could be raised in
spite of the words 'or on anv ground whatsoever' in the Validating Act,
but, objections on the ground that there has been non..observancc of the
provisions of the Improvement Act mus

## Text

I
c
..
D
E
F
G
H
[M.
STATE OF MYSORE &: ANR.
v.
D. ACHIAH CHETTY ETC.
December 11, 1968
HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.,
J. C. SHAH,
V. RAM.\SWAMI,
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
SS
The Bangalore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act (Mys. 19 of
1962). s. 2-Scope oj-Lef(islative competence to remove
discrimination retrospectively-Validating
Acts-Classification produced thereby-
!/ reasonable classification.
In Mysore there were two Acts bearing on acquisition of
private
land for public pll!"pOS!'s. namely, the Mysore Land
Acquisition Act,
1894, and City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. A
notification
under s. 4 of tho Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued for
acquisition of tho respondents" plots in Bangalore. The procedure in tho
Acquisition Act is a shortened procedure which is prejudicial to the owner
of property acquired. The respondents challenged the acquisition 10 the
High ,Court on variou$ grounds and the High Court allowed the petitions.
The Stale appealed to this Court and while tho appeal was pending the
Banp!ore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act, 1962, was passed and
received the assent of the President, as required by the Constitution on
May 4, 1963, It validates all a~uisitions made, proceedinl" held, notifications issued or orders made m connection therewith, by the Stat•
Oovmum:nl purporting 10 act under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act,
before the Validating Act came into force, for the purpose of improvement, expansion or development of the City of Ban2alore.
It also provides tlmt pending proceedings may. be continued under the Mysore Land
ACQuisition Act.
The provisions
are to
be effective notwithstanding
the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, or any other law, judgment,
decree or order of anv court. Section 2(1) of the Validation Act, provides, that no order made under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act is to
be called in question on the ground that the State Government was not
competent to make acquisition for the purpose of improvement or on
any ground whatsoever, and s. 2(2) Provides that a n.otification or order
may be questioned in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore
Land Acquisition Act 'and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the rules
made thereunder.
In this Court in spite of the Validating Act the respondents sought
to support the judgment of the High Court on the grounds that : ( 1)
there were still two Acts which covered the same field but prescribed
two different procedures, and that the notifications issued following the
more prejudicial procedure in the Mysore Land Acquisition Act were
unconstitutional as that Act was discriminatory; (2) an acquisition or
anything done, previously hit by Art. 14 cannot be validated unless the
vice of unreasonable classification is removed, and so, the Validating Act
was ineffective; (3) the Mysore Land Acquisition Act and the
Land
Acquisition Act. 1894, are general laws which must give wav to the
special· law in the Improvement Act; and (4) There is still discrimination, because •. there are two classe' of cases, one, in whose case the Validating Act dispenaeo with the procedure. of the Improvement Act
and
th\ise, in whose case that procedure wi1t be followed
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969) 3 S.C.R.
HELD : ( I ) The supremacy of the Legislatur.. in India, within the
constitutional limits of
their jurisdiction is
complete.
By the
non-
.obstante clause in the Validating Act, the Improvement Act.is put out of
the way as if it were repealed or as if it had not been passed.. The Legislature has made ;retrospectively a single law for the acquisition of property
and .rendered all acquisitions, made before the Validating Act was passed,
to be 'governed by the Mysore Land Acquisition Act alone.
Objections
based on breach of Constitution or fundamental rights could be raised in
spite of the words 'or on anv ground whatsoever' in the Validating Act,
but, objections on the ground that there has been non..observancc of the
provisions of the Improvement Act must fail. [6Z A-C; 63 A-BJ
(2) It is wrong to assume that a 'discrimination arising from selection
-0f one law for action rather than aoother, where two procedures are
available, can never be righ_ted by removing retrospectively one of the
A
B
competing laws from the field.
If there is legislative competence, the
C
Legislature tan always put out of action retrospectively one of the procedures leaving one procedure only available, namely, the one that was
followed and thus get over the discrimination. In the present case. the
only curb on the Legislature's powers was the requirement of the PrC6i-
-dent's assent and that was obtained. [63 BJ
Piara Dusadh v. KinR Emperor, [1944J F.C.R. 61, applied.
,,
(3) There is no question of genelial Acts giving way to a special Act
because, after the Validating Act was passed there was no Improvement
Act to consider. [63 B-F)
D
(4) All Validating Acts lead to two distinct classes those in which
validation is necessary and those in which it is not.
Such class legislation is permissible and the Legislature is competent to validate procedural
<lefects. [63 Hl
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 111 to
113, 115 to 117 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the· judgment and order dated
March 3, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
1076, 1083 and 1087 of 1959 and 270, 359 and 360 of 1960.
F
C. K. Daphtary, B. R. L. Iyengar, R. H. Dhebar and S. P.
Nayar, for the appellants (in all the .appeals).
S. T. Desai, J. Mahajan, J.B. Dadachanji and P.R. Sriniva$an,
for the respondent (in C.A. No. 111 of 1966).
Sarjoo Prasad, B. Datta, J. B. Dadachanji and P. R. Sriro·
G
vasan, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 113 of 1966).
R. Thiagarajan, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 113 of
1966).
A. N. Singh a;nd D. N. Gupta, for the respondent (in C.A.
No. 115 of 1966).
H
J. B. Dadachanji and P. R. Srinivasan, for the respondent (in
C.A. No. 116 of 1966).
•
MYSORE v. ACHIAH CHETTY (/Jidayatullah. C.J.)
s~
A
Shyamala Pappu, M. R. Ramamurthi aQ;i Vineet Kumar, for
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
the respondent (in C.A. No. 117 of 1966).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J. These appeals by special leave are against
a common judgment of the High Court of Mysore, March 3,
1961, allowing a batch of writ petitions.
By the order now
impugned, the High Court had quashed two notifications issued
under ss. 4 and 6 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
published in the Mysore Gazette dated May 7, 1959 and October 15, 1959, respectively, and restrained the State Government from acquiring the land affected by the said notifications.
The State now appeals.
The petitions were directed against the State of Mysore and
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust
Board, Bangalore.
In some of the petitions there were other
respondents either with or without the Special Land Acquisition
Officer.
Nothing, however, turns upon the array of the respondents.
In Mysore there are two Acts bearing on acquisition of private land for public purposes. The first is the Mysore Land Acquisition Act which fQllows the same scheme as the Land Acquisition Act in force in India. The other is the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945. The latter Act constitutes a Board at
Trustees charged with the execution of the Act and in its Third
Chapter lays down the duties and powers of the Board and the
manner in which improvement schemes are to be effectuated.
Sections 14 to 18 and s. 27 outline the procedure by which
acquisition of laind is to be made.
Section 52 of the Act lays
down tliat any provision of law contained in any other enactment
in force in Mysore repugnant to any provision contained in the
Improvement Act is to stand down to the extent of the repugnancy.
The Mysore Land Acquisition Act has also sections 4,
SA and 6 analogous to the corresponding sections in the Central
Land Acquisition Act in foree in thtl whole of India.
The land in respect of which the present dispute has, arisen
is Survey No. 2 of Raja Mahal village, Kasba Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk.
This land belonged originally to the Maharaja
who divided it into plots. The petitioners who came before the
High Court, are owners of some of the plots which were transferred to them by different modes such as sale, gift, etc. These
petitioners acquired plots for purposes of their own. Some had
made Jay-outs already with the pt'ior sanction of the Board and
spent money in laying out the plots including amount paid out
to the Board in this connection.
The notification under s. 4
issued for acquisition of these plots stated that they were being
7Sup. C.l./69-5
SS
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.It
acquirej for public purposes, to wit Raja Mahal Vilas Layout.
Many petitions were filed in the High Court to question the vali·
dity of the action.
It was said that the Notification· under s. 4
of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act gave no particulars and
was followed by the Notihcation under s. 6 with the result that
the opportunity. under s. 5A of objecting to the acquisition was
lost to the petitioners. lt was also contended that the scheme of
layout was feasible only under the Improvement Act through the
Board of Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bangalore
and the. procedure in Chapter Ill of that Act had to be followed.
The acquisition, however, was being made entirely under the
Land Acquisition Act with9u1 any advertence to the provisions of
the Improvement Act.
It was, therefore, contended that the
action of the Government was ultra-vires, section 52 of the Jm.
provement Act and the provisions of the Third Chapter of that
Act. It was also submitted that the action in u8ing the provisions
of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act was discriminatory because
in other cases the provisions of the Improvement Act were applied.
The petitions were filed between the last week of December,
1959 and the last week of March, 1960.
Before the petitions
came up for hearing the Governor of Mysore promulgated on
June 9, 1960 an Ordinance called the City of Bangalore Improvement (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 1 of 1960) introducing retrospectively s. 27-A.. This was followed by an Act which
re-enacted the .provisions of the Ordinance. The Act was, however, not reserved for the assent of the President, nor was his
assent .taken to its introduction. By this section compliance with
the Third Chapter of the Improvement Act was dispensed with.
The petitioners then challenged the Amending Ordinance and the
Amending Act as not complying with Arts. 213 ( 1) and 254 ( l)
of the Constitution. The State of Mysore relied upon the Mysore
Land Acquisition Act for the validity of the proceedings. The
petitioners submitted that the public purpose was linked up with
the improvement of the city of Bangalore and thus fell to be
governed by the Impruvemeut Act. They contended that the di>-
crimination still continued if the attempted inclusion of s. 27 ·A
in · the City Improvement Act was held to be unconstitutional.
It may be mentioned that in one petition a ground of estoppel
had been raised, as expenditure had been incurred in layiilg out
the plot and the Board had received payment for its sanction.
The petitions in the High Court, therefore, proceeded on the
following three broad points : ( 1) validity of Ordinance I of
1960 .and the Mysore Act XIII of 1960; (2) non-compliance
with the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, and (3)
A
B
c
D
F.
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
MYSORE v. AClilAH CliETTY (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
59
discrimination between two classes of cases, i.e. those in which
the provisions of Chapter Ill of the Improvement Act were followed and those like the case of the petitioners in which they
were not followed.
An additional ·point of estoppel was special
to one petition only.
The High Court rightly declared unconstitutional Ordinance
I of 1960 and the Amending Act XIII of 1960 on _the short
ground that the former offeinded cl. ( 1 ) of Art. 213 being promulgated without the instructions of the President and the latter
offended ci. (2) of Art. 254, and it was not reserved for the
consideration of the President and was not assented to by him.
These grounds are so patent that no attempt was made betore us
to urge anything to the contrary.
The High Court next considered the validity of the notifications on the ground of discrimination and found that the provisions of the Third Chapter of the Improvement Act had to be
followed in law.
Since they were by-passed, the High Court
found discrimination between these cases and the cases of others
in which the provisions were followed.
The High Court held
that this shortened procedure offended against the equality clause
in the Constitution. The State was aggrieved by the decision and
this appeal is the result.
Before this appeal came up for hearing a Validating Act
was passed by the Legislature of the State. This Validating Act
was reserved for the assent of the President. The State in arguing
these appeals seeks support from the provisions of the Validating
Act and contends that the judgment under appeal cannot now
be supported because of the validation of the acquisition notwithstanding the provisions of the Improvement Act. The case
before us, therefore, was considered under the new Validating
Act. Before we discuss the arguments, which are advanced in
ll
support of the decisions of the High Court and those against
it we may set out here the provisions of the Validating Act since
they are the main subject of controversy in the appeal before us.
Th~ Act in question is the Bangalore Acquisition of Lands (Validation) Act, 1962 (Act 19 of 1963). It received the assent of
G
H
the President on the Fourth day of May, 1963.
As its lonn
title shows it is an Act to validate the acquisition under th~
Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of lands by the State Government for the purpose of improvement, expansion or development of the City of Bangalore, and ihe orders passed and the
proceedings held in connection therewith.
The Act is intended
to apply to any area _to which the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 extends and validates orders passed and
proceedings held in connection therewith. The Act consists of only
two sections. The first section gives the short title and the second
section deals with validation of certain acquisition of lands and_
SUPREME COURT lj.EPORl'S
i 1969J :1 s.c.R.
proceedings and orders connected therewith. The second section
reads as follows :
"2. Validation of certain acquisition of lands and
proceedings and orders connected therewith.-
( 1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the City
of Bangalore lrnprovement Act, 1945 (Mysore Act
V of 1945), or in any other law, or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court,-
( a) every acquisition of land for the purpose of improvement; expansion or , development of the City of
Hangalore or any area to which the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945, extends, made by the State
Government acting or purporting
to act under the
Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Mysore Act VII
of 1894), at any time before the commencement of
this Act, and every proceeding held, notification issued
and order made in connection with the acquisition of
land for the said purpose shall be deemed for all purposes to have been validly made, held or issued, as
the case may be, and any acquisition proceeding commenced under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
for the said purpose before the commencement of this
Act but not concluded before such commencement,
may be continued under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (Central Act I of 1894). as extended to the State
of Mysore by the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension
and Amendment) Act 1961 and accordingly no acquisition so made, no proceeding held, no notification issued and no order made by the State Government or
by any authority under the Mysore Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, or the Land Acquisition Act, - 1894, in
connection with any such acquisition shall be called in
question on the ground that the State Government was
not competent to make acquisition of land for the said
purpose under the said Act or on any other ground
whatsoever:
(b) any land to the acquisition of which the provisions of clause (a) are applicable shall, after it has
vested in the State Government, be deemed to have
been transferred, or stand transferred, as the case may
be, to the Board of Trustees for the improvement of
the Gity of Bangalore.
(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared
that nothing in sub-section (1 ) shall be construed as
preventing any person from questioning in accordance
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MYSORE v. ACHIAH CHETTY (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
61
A
with the provisions of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act,
1894 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, aind the rules
made under the said Acts, any notification or order made
thereunder."
Now the effect of this section is in many directions. It applies first to every acquisition of land for the purpose of improveB
ment, expansion or development of the city of Bangalore by the
State Government, purporting to act under the Mysore Land
Acquisition Act but only to acquisitions made before that Act
came into force. Next it applies to every proceeding held, notification issued or order made in connection therewith.
Then it
provides that all these shall be deemed to be validly made, held
C
or issued.
Then it provides that pending proceedings may be
continued under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act and no order
made is to be called in question on the ground that the State
Government was not competent to make acquisition for the said
purpose under that Act or on any ground whatsoever. All these
provisions are to be effective notwithstanding the City of BanD
galore Improvement Act, 1945 or any other law, judgment,
decree or order of any Court. The land to which these provisions apply is further to be deemed to have been transferred or
stand transferred to. the Board of Trustees for the improvement
of the city of Bangalore.
The only room left for questioning
any order or notification is in accordance with the provisions of
E
the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894. the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and the rules made under those Acts.
F
G
H
The State Government claims that this Validating Act cuts
short all controversy. It has validated all past actions notwithstanding any breach of the Improvement Act or anv other law
or the decree and order of the High Court. It further submit~
that the action cannot be called in question on the !!round th~t
State Government was not competent to make the acquisition of
land or on anv other l!rQund whatsoever. It further submits that
proceedings already afoot can continue.
This contention is met bv the resnnndents on thre"' main
j!rounds. The first is that there are still two Acts which cover
the same field but prescribe two different procedures.
In one
procedure there is an inquiry, assessment of the public puroose
preparation of scheme. and in the other, there is no11e.
The
more prejudicial procedure which is that of the AcQuisition Act
must be disallowed as it is discriminatory and therefore the two
notifications still continue to be unconstitutional.
The above argument denies to the legislatures the supremacy
which it possesses to make laws on the subiect of acQufaition.
What the Legislature has done is to make retrospectively a sino.'1e
law for the acquisition. of these properties.
The Legislature
62
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
could always have repealed retrospectively the Improvement Act
rendering all acquisitions to be governed by the Mysore Land
Acquisition Act alone. This power of the Legislature is not ~e
nied. The resulting position after the validating Act is not d!ff·
erent.
By non·obstante clause the Improvement Act is put out
of the way and by the operative part the proceedings .f~~ acquisition are wholly brought under the Mysore Land Acqms1tion Act
to be continued only under that Act. The Validating Act re·
moves altogether from consideration any implication arising from
Chapter III or Section 52 of the Improvement Act in much the
same way as if that Act had not been passed.
The Validating Act goes further and says that all the acquisitions shall not be called in question QI! 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 the last six
words of the first clause of s. 2(1) of the Validation Act to
contend further, that the acquisition 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. This is perhaps a larger
claim than these words warrant.
What those words mean is
no more than that in addition to the ground that the State Government was not competent, no other ground based upon breach
of the Improvement Act or any other law is to be entertained.
Those words must be read do}Vll. They do not mean what they
appear to say.
Objections for example of breach of the Constitution or of fundamental rights· will of course remain.
It is
for this reason' that the Legislature enacts sub-section. (2) to
remove doubts and expressly allows objections under the Mysore
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
to be raised, notwithstanding the wide lan)!Uage of the last six
words of the previous section.
Therefore all objections on the
~und that ~n the acauisition there has been non-observance of
the provisions of the Improvement Act must fail.
Mr. S. T. Desai, however, contends that an acquisition hit
by Article 14 or anything done previously cannot ever be validated. unless the vice of unreasonable classification is removed
and the validating Act is ineffective for that rea~on. This argument leads to the logical conclusion that a discrimination arising
from selection of one law for action rather than the other, when
two procedures are available, can never be righted bv removing
retrospectively one of the competing laws from the field. This is
a wrong assumotion.
Jn Piara Dmadh and others v. K.E.(')
trials before soecial judges (not sessions Jud11es under the COde
of. Criminal Procedure) were deemed .to be trial before Sessions
(I) !1944JP.C.R, 61,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MYSORE v. ACH!AH CHETTY (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
63
Judges in accordance with the Code ·and the Federal Court upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance by which this fiction
was created. The supremacy of the Legislatures in India, within
the constitutional limits of their jurisdiction is as complete as
that of the British Parliament. If two procedure' exist and one
is followed and the other discarded, there may in a given case
be found discrimination. But the Legislature has still the competence to put out of action retrospectively one of the procedures leaving one procedure only available, namely, the one followed and thus to make disappear the discrimination. In this
way a Validating Act can get over discrimination. Where, how·
ever, the · legislative competence is not available, the discrimination must remain for ever, since that discrimination can only
be removed by a legislature having power to create a single
procedure out of two and not by a legislature which has not that
power.
Here the Legislature was supreme in the field of acquisition.
The only curb on its powers was the requirement of President's
assent and that admittedly was obtained unlike the previous occasion when the Amending Act failed for want of such assent.
Therefore the Validating Act enacted in 1963 does not suffer
from the defect from which the Amending Act of 1960 suffered .
. The same argument is next put in another way.
It is said
that the Mysore Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are general laws and they must give way to the
special law in the Improvement Act, more so in view of section
52 of the Act last mentioned. But this again i~ores, the position that after the Validating Act there is no Inwrovement Act
ta consider.
·
It is contended that acquisition by the Improvement Trust is
not a public purpo~e. We declined to hear this argument which
does not arise in the appeal before us since it was not raised in
the High Court.
·
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad also arj!Ues that there will be now two
classes of cases, one in which the Validating Act dispense' with
the procedure of the Improvement Act and those in which the
procedure will be followed.
This is the same arJ!Ument in anot~e~ farm and is. equally !utile. Class legislation is always perm1ss1ble. There ts a soectal class in whose case the acquisition·
was under the Acquisition Act without following the procedure
of the Imorovement Act. There are two distinct classes of cases
and the differential is the striking down 0-f •ction in the •econd
class ~~ the need for validation.
All Validating Acts lead to
twO d1stmct c!asses-tbose in which validation is necessary and
64
SUPRllME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
those in which it is not.
The legislature iS always competent to
A
validate procedural defects without in any way losing its jurisdiction by reason of the existence of the other class.
The arguments that no opportunity was given to oppose the
acquisition on the ground that no public purpose was subserved,
must fail because a notification has already been issued under
section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
It is too late for this
·B
Court to enter into the question of public purpose.
It remains to consider the argument based on estoppel which
is claimed in C.A. No. 111 of 1966. There is no doubt that
the High Court has not decided that issue.
The writ petition
must therefore be remanded to the High Court for the consideration of that ground.
The result therefore is that all appeals are allowed. All writ
petitions ( ex.cept 114 which is to be compromised and C.A. No.
111 of I 966 in which there is a remand)
wiJ.l be dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Writ petition
No. 1076 of 1959 (C.A. No. 111 of 1966) shall stand remanded to the High Court but there shall be no order about costs.
Y.P.
Appeals allowed.
c
D