Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Use of land acquired. – (1) Where any land has been acquired under this Act, the Government may undertake or cause to be undertaken such measures as may be necessary for the improvement, development, clearance or re-development of the land, or the erection of buildings thereon, in accordance with such plan as may be approved by them. (2) (i) For the purpose of undertaking the measures referred to in sub-section (1), the Government may either hold the land under their own control and management and undertake such measures themselves or through the Board on such terms and conditions as may be determined by them, or transfer the land to the local authority concerned or the Board for the purpose of undertaking those measures. (ii) Where the land is transferred as provided in clause (i), such land shall vest in the local authority concerned or the Board, as the case may be, and the local authority or the Board shall- (a) pay to the Government the cost of acquisition of the land or such portion thereof as the Government may determine in each case; and (b) undertake the measures referred to in sub-section (1) in accordance with such plans as may be approved by the government, and subject to such directions as may, from time to time, be given by the Government. NOTES Chapter VI was struck down as unconstitutional (being violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution). Notice was served by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board under Section 17 (2) to show cause why the lands mentioned in the Schedule should not be acquired. Writ of mandamus to quash the acquisition proceedings and to forebear the respondents from acquiring the lands for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board under the Act was issued. [1983 (2) MLJ P. 459] Dated 25th March 1983. NOTES – (Contd…) It cannot be gainsaid that at its heart the law enforcement problem has always been and will remain a human problem. In human living conditions lack of hygiene and sanitation prevalent in slums produce serious crime problems. The day of the silent poor must come to an end. There is anger and bitterness in the contemporary slums. Slums in an affluent society constitute an anachronism. Many a children born in slum are diseased at birth, stricken with hereditary illness, but the greatest of all illness is poverty, since it is the most deadly and prevalent disease. More often than not lack of job and money is not the cause of poverty but the symptom. The cause lies deeper in our failure to give fellow citizens a fair habitation and decent living. Provisions of Chapter VI of the Act are however clearly unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, there is no justification for holding the other provisions of the Slum Clearance Act unconstitutional. The Act can exist even de hors of Chapter VI. Applying the doctrine of severance, chapter VI of the Act is struck down as unconstitutional. This decision was overruled in 1995 W.L.R. P.781 the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. V. Ananthammal 22.11.1994 CA No.3312 of 1991 and held that Chapter VI is constitutionally valid. The provision of Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act are held to be “intravires” the constitution. 16 1995 Writ L.R. 781 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 22nd November, 1994/Civil Appeal No.3312 of 1981 J.S. Verma, S.P. Bharucha and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. Ananthi Ammal & Ors. …Respondents Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31 of 1978), S.11(1), and Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 31-C- Tamil Nadu Act, held, intra vires, except a part of S.11(1), in so far as it provides for payment of compensation in instalments – S.11(1) part, is severable and remaining part of the Section and the Act upheld, as not violative of Art.14 – Judgment of Madras High Court reversed. No unreasonableness in S.20 enacting that provisions of Land Acquisition Act, shall save an expressly provided, cease to apply to the land. Applicability of the Act according to S.22, to cases in which proceedings had been started under L.A. Act before the commencement of the said Act but no award has been passed – No unreasonableness. Obligation of the prescribed authority under s.7(2) to award marked value plus 15% solatium – Appeal contemplated under 5.9 is in respect of the award for the land which comprises its market value and solatium – Sx.7 and 9 should not be read so as to render S.9 an absurdity. Compensation determined under the L.A. Act on the basis of “Market Value” of land on date of S.4 (1) Notification is on a specified principle – In the same way, it is of no great consequence when compensation is determined (under this enactment) on the basis of market value on a date anterior to the date of extinction of interest, which is still determined “on a principle specified’ within Art.31(2). Provisions of S.4 of the Act, held, substantially encapsulate provisions of Ss.4 to 6 of L.A. Act, and are not unreasonable or arbitrary. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Act – Chapter VI, held to be intra vires the Constitution – See Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31 of 1978) etc., (para 26) Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 31-C, etc.,- See Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act (31 of 1978), S. 11(1), etc., Held: “We do not find the provisions of the said Act, except for the provision as to instalments, in Section 11, violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether or not the said Act has the protection of Article 31-C of the Constitution”. Except of the provisions of Section 11(1) of the said Act, in so far they provide for payment of the compensation amount in instalments the said Act is intra vires the Constitution Section 11(1) is valid only to this extent. Paras 9,20 “We must, however, take account of the fact that the judgment under appeal striking down the said Act was delivered as far back as September, 1981, and no stay thereof, was obtained from the court. It is likely, therefore, that in cases where proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had already been started to acquire lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes, they might have been revived and completed in the interregnum. We, therefore, make it clear that the provisions of section 22 shall have no effect in such cases where awards have been made”. 17 Para 18. “S. 22 makes the provisions of the said Act applicable also to cases in which proceedings have been started before the commencement of the said Act under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Harijan Welfare Schemes, provided that no award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act. We see no unreasonableness in this provision”. Para 18. It is true that the said Act provides for matters which are to be ignored in determining the amount under Section 8, but does not make provision, as the Land Acquisition Act does, in determining the amount. It has, however, to be realized that the concept of market value and how it is to be determined is well established. Under the Land Acquisition Act compensation is determined on the basis of “market value” of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. That is a specification of principle. Compensation determined on the basis of market value prevailing on a date anterior to the date of extinction of interest is still determined “on a principle specified”. It is therefore, of no great consequence that the said Act does not go on to specify what is to be taken into account in determining the amount payable as compensation for land that is acquired there under. Para 11. The provisions of Section 4, substantially encapsulate the provisions of Sections 4 to 6 of their Land Acquisition Act, the only major difference being that, under the said Act, it is the District Collector and not the State Government who must be satisfied that the land is required to be acquired. “It does not appear to us that this is a provision which is unreasonable or arbitrary”. Para 8. When a statute is impugned under Article 14, what the Court has to decide is whether the statute is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it must be struck down. At best, a statute upon a similar subject which desires its authority from another source can be referred to, if which desires its authority its authority from another source can be referred to, if its provisions have been held to be reasonable or have stood the test of time, only for the purpose of indicating what may be said to be reasonable in the context. “we proceed to examine the provisions of the said Act upon this basis”. Para 7. “We have held the provisions of the said Act (TN Act.31 of 1978) to be valid legislation except in so far as they provide for payment of the compensation amount in instalments. The said Act being valid legislation, its provisions preclude the State from acquiring land for the purpose of a Harijan Welfare Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is allowed and the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the appellant’s land for the purpose of a Harijan Welfare Scheme are, therefore, quashed and set aside”. Para 29. AIR 1954 S.C.493; AIR 1988 S.C.485; AIR 1969 S.C.64; 1962-1-S.C.R.676; and 1991-4-S.C.C.95; Referred to. The provisions of Chapter VI of the Slum Clearance Act are held to be intra vires the Constitution. Para 26. Judgment of the Madras High Court reversed Civil Appeals allowed 18 CHAPTER VII PROTECTION OF [OCCUPANTS] IN SLUM AREAS FROM EVICTION