HELD : ( I ) The supremacy of the Legislatur.. in India, within the A 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 By the non.obstante clause in the Validating Act, the Improvement Act.is put out of the way as if it were repealed or as if it had not been passed..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 Legisla- ture 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 B 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 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. ,, D (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) (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).
