Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Monday, 03 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2021-06-29

G. MOHAN RAO & ORS vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS

Bench: 2 — A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari

In Brief

The State of Tamil Nadu enacted three land acquisition Acts in 1978, 1997, and 2001 for specific purposes (Harijan welfare, industry, and highways). The Madras High Court declared these void as repugnant to the 2013 land acquisition Act made by Parliament. The State subsequently enacted the 2019 Act to revive these three Acts with Presidential assent under Article 254(2). The Supreme Court upheld the 2019 Act as a valid legislative exercise, holding that the State had competence to retrospectively validate the nullified Acts by removing the defect identified by the High Court (the improper method of revival through Section 105A). The Court held that Article 254(2) allows State laws to prevail despite repugnancy once Presidential assent is obtained, and that referential legislation (incorporating prior Act provisions by reference) is a permissible form of re-enactment.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Land Acquisition Separation of Powers Legislative Competence Concurrent List Repugnancy Retrospective Legislation Validating Statutes

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login