Repungency
kiran 11111
(Querist) 12 January 2014
This query is : Resolved
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Acquisition , Resettlement and Rehabilitation 2013 has been brought into force from January 1 , 2014. This act deals with acquisition of land and resettlement of displaced person on account of acquisition of land. The subject resettlement Is in concurrent list at entry no 27 whereas acquisition is at entry no 42 in concurrent list. This act has been passed by union government.
In Maharashtra there is Maharashtra Project affected persons rehabilitation act 1999 dealing with rehabilitation of displaced person. This act has received the assent of the President . Union act has repealed earlier Land Acquisition Act . However union act has not expressly repealed Maharashtra Project affected persons resettlement act. So in Maharashtra we will have two laws dealing on resettlement of displaced person.
So my question is
1. Which law will prevail ?
2. Whether Maharashtra Project affected person rehabilitation act will prevail in view of article 254(2) ?
3. Whether both acts will go together?
venkatesh Rao
(Expert) 12 January 2014
Both will rule the field and when there is repugnancy about any particular provision, then state law will prevail over the central law.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 12 January 2014
Both are legal and applicable till competent authority decide otherwise.
kiran 11111
(Querist) 12 January 2014
A book by MP Jain on Constitution states that , there is implied repungency if the Law passed by Parliament is latter than the state law. The state law is repealed by implication
In the present situation , Land Acquisition Act 2013 is passed in the year 2013 whereas Maharashtra Project Affected Person' s Resettlement Act has been passed in 1999.
kiran 11111
(Querist) 12 January 2014
. The proviso to Art. 254(2) empowers the Union Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the 'same matter'. Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made.
Hoescht Pharmaceuticals vs State of Bihar AIR 1983 Sc1019
My query is that entire State law will become void or only repungent provision of state law will be void ?
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 13 January 2014
You yourself admitted in writing that " Even though the subsequent law made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State Law, even then, the State Law will become void as soon as the subsequent Law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made. Inspite of such a view of the Apex Court how you raised such a query of foolishness?
kiran 11111
(Querist) 13 January 2014
You have not read my query.
My query is that entire State law will become void or only repungent provision of state law will be void ?
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 13 January 2014
Apex Court said......even then, the State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parliament creating repugnancy is made.
Following principle of STATUTORY LAW (Crays )
What will be the interpretation of the above views? Whether " State Law " MEANS THE ENTIRE STATE LAW OR PARTIAL STATE LAW?
kiran 11111
(Querist) 13 January 2014
The provision of state law dealing particular subject matter which would be repungent to provision of central law or state law will be repealed entirely , by implications?
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 13 January 2014
Repeal is a process which means abrogation of an existing law by legislative act. Unless it is abrogated by legislative Act it can be said as implied repeal viz., repeal by irreconcilable conflict between an old law on main motion and a more recent law or motion.
(Expert) 14 January 2014
