Memorial Respondent

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TEAM CODE.
BEFORE THE
HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT
NEW DELHI, INDIA
STATE GOVERNMENT OF MITHILA .PITITIONER
V/S.
SPARTA INDIA PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of abbreviations III

Index of authorities .IV
1 Case list
2 Books referred
3 Websites
Statement of jurisdiction .VI
Statement of facts VII
Statement of issues .IX
Statement of argument X
Argument advance..(13-28)
(1) Issue 113
(2) Issue 2 ...14-17
(3) Issue 318-19
(4) Issue 420-24
(5) Issue 525-26
(6) Issue 627-28
PrayerXXIX
LIST OF ABBREVITIONS
& And
A.I.R. All India Reporters
CONST. The Constitution of India
HONBLE Honorable
ORS. Others

SC Supreme Court
SSC Supreme Court Cases
V./VS. Versus
UOI Union of India
LTD. Limited
ART. Article
PVT. Private
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE CITED:
1. Chiranjit lal v. Union of India1
2. R.K. Garg v. UOI2
3. Monoponier co. v. City of Los Angeles3
4. Lindsley v. natural carbonic gas co4
5. Jaila Singh V. State of Rajasthan
6. D.S. Nakara V. UOI5
1 AIR 1951 SC 41
2 AIR 1981 SC 2138
3 33 Cal App .675
4 (1910) 220 US 61
5 AIR 1983 SC 130

7. Suneel Jatly V. State of Haryana6

8. Deep Chand v. state of U.P.7
9. Zaverbhai V. State of Bombay8
10. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur V. M/S Shiv Shakti khansari Udyog9
11. Premnath Vs. State of J&K10
12. Ukha Vs. State of Maharashtra11
13. Bar Council, U.P. Vs. State of U.P.12
14. Barani Vs. Henry13
15. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Vs. State of Bihar14
16. Pochanna Lingappa Vs. State of Maharashtra15

17. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Karnataka16
18. Lakhi Narayan Das vs. Province of Bihar17 AIR 1950 FC 59.
6 (1984) 4 SCC 296
7 AIR 1959 SC 648
8 AIR 1954 SC 752
9 AIR 2012 SC 3511
10 AIR 1959 SC 749 (1959) Suppl 2 SCR 270
11 AIR 1963 SC 1531, paragraph 20
12 AIR 1973 SC 231, 238; (1973) 1 SCC 261
13 AIR 1983 SC 150, paragraph 15
14 AIR 1983 SC 1020, paragraphs 68, 69 and 76
15 AIR 1985 SC 389, paragraph 26; (1985) 1 SCC 425
16 AIR 1990 SC 2072
17 AIR 1950 FC 59

BOOKS:
1. Indian constitutional law (lexis Nexis) by M.P. Jain 7th edition 2014.
2. Constitutional law of India (Universal law publishing) by H.M. Seervai vols.1
reprinted 2008.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under article 132 of
Constitution of India. The Respondents reserve the right to contest the jurisdiction of this
Honble Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Mithila is state of the Indian union which is located in eastern part of the union. The state is
among top 3 states in the production of rice and hence its economy is vastly dependent on
agriculture. This state is one of the most politically sensitive states with frequent political clashes
between the different political parties. the Chief Minister emphasized on the fact that the state of
Mithila although quite stable in agricultural sector, needs a boost in the industrial field as was
promised in the election manifesto. He gave an open invitation to the corporate houses to come
and setup industries in the state to boost the economy of the state which was not in a good shape.
The Sparta India Pvt. Ltd which was an industrial giant of India announced that they would soon
launch a new and affordable car called the Sparta Giano which according to them would be
revolutionalize the Indian automobile sector. In joint press conference Mr. Gautamdev Pandit
was chief minister of Mithila and Mr.Sudeep Sparta Chairman of Sparta Group decided to setup
the plant in Bangur, to plant the industry of Sparta Pvt. Ltd. about 950 acres of agriculture land
on behalf Sparta Group. Sparta Group will provide compensation and employment to the
families of the farmers whose land would be acquired.
It was said that the state government would acquire 950 acres of agricultural land on behalf of
Sparta Group and the Sparta Group shall provide compensation and employment to the families
of the farmers whose lands would be acquired. Bangur is located in the district of Srirampur. It is
known to be one of the most fertile areas of the country.

The Federal Party of India was the main opposition party espoused the cause of the farmers who
were against the land acquisition. M.s.Seema Thakur who was leader of opposition organizing
violent protest and dharnas all across the state warned the Government of mass agitation if it
went ahead with its plan of acquisition. But Government being hell bent on land acquiring the
land, using massive police force which resorted to lathi charge, tear gas and water canon
acquiring land in October, 2008 and handed over Sparta Group.
The Sparta Group began the construction work of Giano plant and by August 2009 the plant was
ready to undergo the production. Meanwhile, Ms. Seema Thakur, continued her allegation. The
sit in protest which continued for two long months ultimately forced the Sparta Group to
withdraw the project from the site although they did not part with the possession of the land.
Owing to high anti-incumbency wave, the Federal Party of India was voted to power in the
Assembly Elections of 2013 and Ms. Seema Thakur became the Chief Minister of the state.
Acting promptly on the promise made before Elections, in the first cabinet meeting of the state it
was agreed that law would be made acquire 950 acres of land in Bangur and hand over 400 acres
back to the unwilling farmers and utilize the rest for the other purposes.
The State Government in its first Assembly Session introduced the Bangur Land Rehabilitation
and Development Bill, 2013 and passed it in the same session amidst huge protest from the
opposition party. The Governor of Mithila assented to the bill which came into force from 1st
November 2013. The primary object of the Act was to acquire the land from the Sparta Group
and return 400 acres land to the unwilling farmers from whom earlier the land was acquired and
utilize the rest for some purpose beneficial to the people.
Soon after the Act, the state Government took possession of the 950 acres of land from the Sparta
Group. The Sparta Group immediately challenged the constitutional validity of the Act in the
High Court of Mithila as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that
the Act failed to answer the test of reasonable classification. Being aggrieved by the judgments
the Sparta Group filed an appeal in the division bench of the High Court of Mithila which
declared the Act to be unconstitutional and void.
The Division Bench held that this Act Land acquisition is a concurrent subject and some of
provisions of the law are in conflict with Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The

Act was held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it failed to satisfy the test of
reasonable classification and intelligible differentia. The bench also observed that state
government has not sought the assent of President of India which according to its necessary for
such an Act. Further the High Court of Mithila observed that there was only a mention term
refund in the Act and no clear cut compensation scheme was provided.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Mithila, the State Government preferred to
appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India admitted the appeal and listed
it for final hearing.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE: 1 Whether this Appeal is Maintainable?
ISSUE:2 Whether the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
ISSUE:3 Whether the consent of the President of India was essential for the Bangur Land
Rehabilitation and Development Bill, 2013?
ISSUE:4 Whether the absence of Social Impact Assessment clause renders the Bangur Land
Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?
ISSUE:5 Whether the acquisition of land under the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and
Development Act, 2013 fulfills the criteria of public purpose as mentioned in the Central Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

ISSUE:6 Whether the refund clause mentioned in the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and
Development Act, 2013 is legally valid?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE:1 Whether this Appeal is Maintainable?
This appeal is not maintainable because High Court of Mithila declared this Act (the Bangur
Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013)unconstitutional and void. The Division
bench held this act repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013
This act volatile of article 14 of the constitution of India on the ground the act failed to answer
the test of reasonable classification. Because the primary object of the act was to acquire the land
from the Sparta group ltd. And return only 400 acres land to the unwilling farmers, why the
government did not return the rest of the land to other farmers they also gives their land.
The test of reasonable classification said that while Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not
forbids reasonable classification of persons, objects and transaction by the legislature for the
purpose of achieving specific ends. Classification to be reasonable must fulfill the following two
conditions:-

(a) Intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from other left out of the group.
(b) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the act.
All farmers are equal in the eye of law.
The consent of president is essentials for passing a law made by legislature of a state there is two
situation arise in this act this act is the matter of concurrent list and repugnant to parliaments
law.
Presidents consent is essential for passing a state legislatures bill where:

The governor reserved bill for president assent.
The presidents assent is required whereas a bill is likely to affect the power of the High
court of a State; the governor must reserve it for the consideration of the president in the
case of state law.
The law made by the legislature of the state is repugnant to any provision of a law made
by parliament.
In the matter of concurrent list.

Yes the absence of Social Impact Assessment clause renders the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and
Development Act, 2013 repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 because as per the Central Land act, 2013 of chapter II Sec. 4(1) of
determination of social impact and public purpose says whenever the appropriate government
intends to acquire the land for public purpose, it shall consult the concerned Panchayat,
Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, at village level or ward level, in the affected area and
carry out the social Impact Assessment study in the consultation with them, in such manner and
from such date as may be specified by such government by notification.
No the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 does not fulfills the criteria of
public purpose as mentioned in the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 because there is no clause of public purpose defined in the Bangur Land
Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013.
According to Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

whenever the appropriate government intends to acquire the land for public purpose, it shall
consult the concerned Panchayat, Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, at village level or
ward level, in the affected area and carry out the social Impact Assessment study in the
consultation with them, in such manner and from such date as may be specified by such
government by notification.

The refund clause mentioned in the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 is
not legally valid because the act does not contemplate any clear provision regarding the
compensation to be paid to the Sparta Group.
According to the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 for the transfer to the
vesting of the land lease to the Sparta group ltd. The amount of the compensation would be
adjudged and determined by the district judge, mithila on an application being made by Sparta
group ltd. In due compliance with the principal of natural justice and by reasoned ordered. But
this provision repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013. If any of law made by legislature repugnant to centrals law it become invalid on the
ground or repugnancy.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE:1 Whether this Appeal is Maintainable?
This appeal is not maintainable because High Court of Mithila declared this Act (the Bangur
Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013)unconstitutional and void. The Division
bench held this act repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.

This act violative of article 14 of the constitution of India on the ground the act failed to answer
the test of reasonable classification. Because the primary object of the act was to acquire the land
from the Sparta group ltd. And return only 400 acres land to the unwilling farmers, why the
government did not return the rest of the land to other farmers they also gives their land.
The test of reasonable classification said that while Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not
forbids reasonable classification of persons, objects and transaction by the legislature for the
purpose of achieving specific ends. Classification to be reasonable must fulfill the following two
conditions:-
(a) Intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from other left out of the group.
(b) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the act.
All farmers are equal in the eye of law. According to Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
Article 14 permits classification but prohibits class legislation: the equal protection of law
guaranteed by article 14 does not mean that all laws must be general in character. It does not
mean that the same laws should be applying to all persons. All persons are not, by nature,
attainment or circumstances in the same position. The varying needs of different classes of
person often require separate treatment. From the very nature of the society there should be

different laws in the different place and the legislature control the policy and enacts laws in the
best interest of the safety and security of the state. In fact, identical treatment in unequal
circumstances would amount to inequality. So, a reasonable classification is only not permitted
but is necessary if society is to progress.
Thus, what article 14 forbids is class legislation but it does not forbids reasonable classification.
The classification, however, must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on
some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to
be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any
reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently, article 14 does not apply.
Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular
privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons, all of
whom stand in the same relation to privilege granted that between whom and the persons not so
favored no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion
of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.
According Article 14 this Act (the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013),
volatile of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Because the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and
Development Act, 2013 divide farmers into 2 category
Willingly farmers, and
Unwillingly farmers
Thats mean the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 discriminate
peoples, which means that the article 14 volatile on the ground of
Equality before law: equality before law means that among equals the law
should be equal and should be equality administered, that like should be treated
alike.
Equal protection of the laws: this has been interpreted to mean subjection to
equal law, applying to all in the same circumstances18. Only it means that all
18 Lindsley v. natural carbonic gas co, (1910) 220 US 61

person similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in the privileges

conferred and liabilities imposed by laws.
In Chiranjit lal V. Union of India19 the word any person in article 14 of the constitution denote
that the guarantee of the equal protection of laws is available to any person which includes any
company or association or body of individuals. The protection of article 14 extended to both
citizens and non-citizens and to natural person as well as legal persons. The equality before law
is guaranteed to all without regard to race, color or nationality. Corporations being juristic
persons are also entitled to the benefit of article 14.
In R.K. Garg v. UOI20 article 14 forbids is class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
classification. The classification, however, must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must
be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the legislation.
In Monoponier co. v. City of Los Angeles 21 Article 14 applies where equals are treated
differently without any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequals are treated differently,
article 14 does not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by
conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number
of persons, all of whom stand in the same relation to privilege granted that between whom and
the persons not so favored no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found
justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privileges.
19 AIR 1951 SC 41
20 AIR 1981 SC 2138
21 33 Cal App .675

In Jaila Singh V. State of Rajasthan therefore, mere differentiation or inequality of treatment

does not per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause. To
attract article 14, it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or
arbitrary, that is does not rest on rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature
has in view in making the law in question.
In re special courts bill the differentia which is the basis of the classification and the act are
distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a means between them
Whether a classification adopted by a law is reasonable or not is a matter for the court to decide.
The question of reasonableness of classification has arisen in innumerable cases. The courts
however shows a good deal of deference to legislature intent and do not lightly hold a
classification unreasonable. A study of cases will show that many different classifications have
been upheld as constitutional. There is no closed category of classification, the extant, range and
kind of classification depends on the subject-matters of the legislation, the conditions of the
country, the economics, social and political factors at work a particulars time.
In D.S. Nakara V. UOI22 the Supreme Court struck down rule 34 of the Central services
(pension) rules, 1972 as unconstitutional on the round that the classification made by it between
pensioners retuning before a particular date and returning after that date was not based on any
rational principal and was arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the constitution. In that case,
deasi, j., who spoke for the majority, assimilated both the doctrines, viz., the doctrine of
arbitrariness and a doctrine of classification, re-stating the concept of equality and the test to be
applied in order to satisfy the requirement of article 14 his lordship said.
In Suneel Jatly V. State of Haryana23 the reservation of 25 seats for admission to M.B.B.S and
B.D.S course for students who were educated for class I to VIII in common rural school was held
22 AIR 1983 SC 130

to be violative of article 14 and invalid as the classification between the rural educated and urban
educated student for this purpose was wholly arbitrary and irrational having no nexus to be
archived of providing extra facilities to students coming from rural school to enter medical
college. The same government prescribes standard of education, equipment, grant and facilities
including the qualification of the staff for being employed in urban and rural schools imparting
instructions from first to eight standards. Thus all student of class IX to XII, those coming from
rural school and those from urban are similarly placed yet they are artificially divided by a
reference to a part even wholly unrelated to the object sought to be archived and hence the
reservation based on such classification was held to be constitutionally invalid.
The consent of president is essentials for passing a law made by legislature of a state there is two
situation arise in this act, this act is the matter of concurrent list and repugnant to parliaments
law.
Presidents consent is essential for passing a state legislatures bill where:

The governor reserved bill for president assent.
The presidents assent is required whereas a bill is likely to affect the power of the High
court of a State; the governor must reserve it for the consideration of the president in the
case of state law.
The law made by the legislature of the state is repugnant to any provision of a law made
by parliament.
In the matter of concurrent list.
Which relate to imposition of taxes on water or electricity in certain cases, and attract the
provisions of Clause (2) of Article 288; and
Which fall within clause (4) (a) (ii) of Article 360, during a Financial Emergency.
23 (1984) 4 SCC 296

Any of the law made state legislature matter enumerated of concurrent list it has to be assent by
the president if it is repugnant to the centrals land the this act is became valid if it is not assent by
president it become unconstitutional or invalid on the ground of repugnancy.
In Zaverbhai V. State of Bombay24 parliament enacted the essential supplies act, 1946, for the
regulation production, supply and distribution of essential commodities. A contravention of any
provision of above the act was punishable with imprisonment up to 3 year or fine or both. In
1947, considering the punishment inadequate, the Bombay legislature passed an act enhancing
the punishment provided under the central law. The Bombay act received the assent of the
president and thus prevailed over the central law and become operative in Bombay.
Repugnancy- Assent of the president sought for a specific purpose would be limited to that and
cannot be extended beyond it:
In Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur V. M/S Shiv Shakti khansari Udyog 25 the
mechanism enshrined in the sugarcane control order, 1996 issued under section 3 of essential
commodities act, 1955 and M.P. krishi upaj Mandi adhiniyam, 1973 regarding the determination
of price of sugarcane was vastly different. The control order envisaged fixation of minimum
price of sugarcane by the central government. The market act postulated determination of the
price of the notified agriculture produce brought into the market yard for sale which could not be
less than the support price declared by the state government. One of the questions involved was
whether the market act would prevail over control order. The plea that the market act was
enforced after taking the assent of the president and hence it would prevail was held to be not
tenable since the act had not been reserved for presidential assent on the ground of repugnancy
between the act and control order. The assent of the president is not an empty formality and the
president has to be apprised of the reason why his assent is being sought. If the assent is sought
for a specific purpose, it would be limited to that purpose and cannot be extended beyond it.
24 AIR 1954 SC 752
25 AIR 2012 SC 3511

Yes the absence of Social Impact Assessment clause renders the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and
Development Act, 2013 repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 because as per the Central Land act, 2013 of chapter II Sec. 4(1) of
determination of social impact and public purpose says :
4 (1) whenever the appropriate government intends to acquire the land for public purpose, it shall
(2) The notification by issued by the appropriate government for commencement of consultation
and of the social Impact Assessment study under sub-section (1) shall be made available in the
local language to then Panchayat, Municipality, Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and
in the offices of the district collector, the sub divisional magistrate and the Tehsil, and shall be
published in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded on the
website of the appropriate government:

Provided that the appropriate government shall ensure that the adequate representation has to be
given to the representatives of Panchayat, Gram-Sabha, Municipality or Municipal Corporation,
as the case may be, at the stage of carrying out the Social Impact Assessment study:
Provided further that that appropriate government shall ensure the completion of the Social
impact Assessment study within a pried of six months from the date of its commencement.
(3) The Social Impact Assessment study report referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made
available to the public in the manner prescribed under section 6.
(4) The Social Impact Assessment study referred to in sub-section (1) shall, amongst other matter
include all the following, namely:-
a) Assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose;

b) Estimation of affected families and the number of families among them
likely to be displaced;
c) Extent of land, public and private houses, settlement and other common
properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition;
d) Whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-
minimum extent needed for the project;
e) Whether the land acquisition at an alternate places has been considered and
found not feasible;
f) Study of social science impact of the project, and the nature and the cost of
addressing them and the impact of these cost on the overall cost of the
project vis--vis the benefits of the project:
Provided that environmental Impact Assessment study, if any, shall be carried out
simultaneously and shall not be contingent upon the completion of the social Impact Assessment
study.

Thats why the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 repugnant to the Central
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As well as there is no contemplate
any clear provision regarding the compensation, it is also a matter of repugnancy between Center
and State law.
Article 254 repugnancy
Since the Concurrent List 26[1] article 246 (2) gives power to two legislatures, a conflict can
arise between laws passed on the same subject by the two legislatures. To deal with this situation,
article 254 of the Constitution makes the following provision:
254(1)If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any
provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to
enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause
(2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made
by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall
prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of
the repugnancy, be void.
26

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision is repugnant
to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with
respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State
shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has
received his assent, prevail in the State: but there is not presidents assent for
the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013.
In Deep Chand v. state of U.P.27 the validity of U.P. transport service act was involved. By this
act the state government was authorized to make the scheme for the nationalization of motor
transport in the state. The law was necessitated because the motor vehicles act, 1939 did not
contain any provision for the nationalization of motor transport services. Later on, in 1956 the
parliament with a view to introduce a uniform law amended the motor vehicles act, 1939, and
added a new provision enabling the state government to frame rules of nationalization of motor
transport. The court held that the since both the union law and the state law occupied the same
field, the state law was void to the extent of repugnancy to the union law.
In Zaverbhai V. State of Bombay28 parliament enacted the essential supplies act, 1946, for the
regulation production, supply and distribution of essential commodities. A contravention of any
provision of above the act was punishable with imprisonment up to 3 year or fine or both. In
1947, considering the punishment inadequate, the Bombay legislature passed an act enhancing
the punishment provided under the central law. The Bombay act received the assent of the
president and thus prevailed over the central law and become operative in Bombay. However, in
1959 parliament amended its act of 1946 and enhanced the punishment. It was held that as both
occupied the same field the state law became void as being repugnant to the central law.
27 AIR 1959 SC 648
28 AIR 1954 SC 752

In Vijay Kumar Sharma V. State of Karnataka29 Repugnancy between

the Parliamentary Act and the State Act in respect of matters, in the Concurrent
List, Seventh Schedule--When arises--Karnataka Contract Carriages
(Acquisition) Act,1976---Whether repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Statutory interpretation-Doctrine of pith and substance or dominant purpose--
Scope of--Whether applicable to find repugnancy under Article 254 of the
Constitution between Parliamentary and State laws in respect of matters in
List111 Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Karnataka Contract Carriages
(Acquisition) Act, 1976 enacted by the State Legislature by taking aid of Entry
42List III of the Seventh Schedule and Articles 31 and 39 (b)and (c) of the
Constitution was reserved for consideration and received the assent of the
President of March 11, 1976.
Judge stated that sec 14(1) to the extent of prohibiting to make fresh application for grant of
permits to run the contract carriages other than those acquired under Act 21 of 1976
(Acquisition Act) and the embargo and prohibition created under s. 20(3) thereof on the
respective Regional Transport Authority in the State of Karnataka to invite/receive the
application to consider the grant of permits to such contract carriages according to law,
are hereby, declared to be void.
29 AIR 1990 SC 2072

No the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 does not fulfills the criteria of
public purpose as mentioned in the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 because there is no clause of public purpose defined in the Bangur Land
Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013.
According to Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

whenever the appropriate government intends to acquire the land for public purpose, it shall
a) Assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose;

b) Estimation of affected families and the number of families among them

likely to be displaced;
c) Extent of land, public and private houses, settlement and other common
properties likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition;
d) Whether the extent of land proposed for acquisition is the absolute bare-
minimum extent needed for the project;
e) Whether the land acquisition at an alternate places has been considered and
found not feasible;
f) Study of social science impact of the project, and the nature and the cost of
addressing them and the impact of these cost on the overall cost of the
project vis--vis the benefits of the project:
The appropriate government shall ensure that-

There is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose acquisition which necessitates the
acquisition of the land indentified;
The potential benefits and the public purpose referred to in clause (a) shall outweigh the
social cost and adverse social impact as determined by the Social Impact Assessment that
has been carried out;
Only the minimum area of the land required for the project is proposed to be acquired;
There is no unutilized land which has been previously acquired in the area;
The and, if any, acquired earlier and remained unutilized, is use for such purpose and
make recommendation in respect thereof.
Conclusion: that the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 not fulfills the
criteria of public purpose as mentioned in the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The features of public purpose which is in Central Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is already defined according to these of features the
Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 is repugnant to the Central Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The refund clause mentioned in the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 is
not legally valid because the act does not contemplate any clear provision regarding the
compensation to be paid to the Sparta Group.
According to the Bangur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2013 for the transfer to the
vesting of the land lease to the Sparta group ltd. The amount of the compensation would be
adjudged and determined by the district judge, mithila on an application being made by Sparta
group ltd. In due compliance with the principal of natural justice and by reasoned ordered.
The amount so determined in accordance with the provisions hereto, shall carry simple interest at
the rate of six per centum from the period commencing on the date of application made by
claimant and ending on the date of tender of the amount as may be determined and payable by
the state government.
But According to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

The collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall
calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner by including all
assets attached to the land.
In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the acquired under this
act, the collector shall take into consideration-
i. The market value as determined under section 26 and the amount in
accordance with the first and second schedules;
ii. The damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of
any standing crops and trees which may be on the land at the time of the
collectors taking possession thereof;
iii. The damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the
collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land
from his other land;
iv. The damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the
collector taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other property, movable of immovable, in any other
manner, or his earning;
v. In consequence of the acquisition of the land by the collector, the person
interested is compelled to the change his residence and place of the
business, the reasonable expenses incidental to such changes;
vi. The damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profit the land
between the time of publication of the declaration under section 19 and the
time of the collectors taking possession of the land; and
vii. Any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and
beneficial to the affected families.
But this provision repugnant to the Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013. If any of law made by legislature repugnant to centrals law it become invalid on the
ground or repugnancy.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent, humbly prays before the Honble Court, to adjudge and declare that:
1. The leave petition filed by petitioner under Art. 132 of the constitution of India declare it
not maintainable.
2. Declare this Act unconstitutional and void.
3. The respondent has violated the fundamental right guaranteed to citizens under article 14
of the constitution of India.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of
justice equality and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Memorial Respondent

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Memorial Respondent

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

NEW DELHI, INDIA

STATE GOVERNMENT OF MITHILA .PITITIONER

SPARTA INDIA PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

List of abbreviations III

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

2 AIR 1981 SC 2138

3 33 Cal App .675

5 AIR 1983 SC 130

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

7. Suneel Jatly V. State of Haryana6

16. Pochanna Lingappa Vs. State of Maharashtra15

6 (1984) 4 SCC 296

7 AIR 1959 SC 648

8 AIR 1954 SC 752

9 AIR 2012 SC 3511

10 AIR 1959 SC 749 (1959) Suppl 2 SCR 270

11 AIR 1963 SC 1531, paragraph 20

12 AIR 1973 SC 231, 238; (1973) 1 SCC 261

13 AIR 1983 SC 150, paragraph 15

14 AIR 1983 SC 1020, paragraphs 68, 69 and 76

15 AIR 1985 SC 389, paragraph 26; (1985) 1 SCC 425

16 AIR 1990 SC 2072

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 7

ISSUE: 1 Whether this Appeal is Maintainable?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 8

ISSUE:1 Whether this Appeal is Maintainable?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 9

(a) Intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

Presidents consent is essential for passing a state legislatures bill where:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 10

According to Central Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 11

ISSUE:1 Whether this Appeal is Maintainable?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 13

18 Lindsley v. natural carbonic gas co, (1910) 220 US 61

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 14

person similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in the privileges

20 AIR 1981 SC 2138

21 33 Cal App .675

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 15

In Jaila Singh V. State of Rajasthan therefore, mere differentiation or inequality of treatment

22 AIR 1983 SC 130

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 16

Presidents consent is essential for passing a state legislatures bill where:

23 (1984) 4 SCC 296

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 17

24 AIR 1954 SC 752

25 AIR 2012 SC 3511

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 19

a) Assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose;

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 20

Article 254 repugnancy

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 21

27 AIR 1959 SC 648

28 AIR 1954 SC 752