ORDER : (Goutam Bhaduri, J.) 1. By the present petitions, the constitutional validity of Chhattisgarh Land Holdings (Validation) Act, 2013 (In short “the Act of 2013”), is challenged on the ground that it has received the assent of the Governor on 13.07.2013 which is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; the Indian Registration Act, 1908; the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; the Central Acts and the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioners, who claimed the subject land from their erstwhile owner, submitted that the acquisition of the land by an agreement cannot be validated by the present Act of 2013 and the State Legislature is repugnant to Article 254 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners would submit that the Act of 2013 has not received the consent of the President of India under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 3 of the said Act, which validate the sale, exchange and transfer of land under the agreement of exchange or agreement to sell will override Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act,1908 and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. He would submit that on the sole ground, the Act of 2013 is required to be declared ultra virus. 3. In opposing the said submission, the State counsel contended that the validation would affect only to the property acquired by Government instrumentalities, which are named in statutes as Raipur Development Authority and Chhattisgarh Housing Board and statute was not trenched upon the transaction by public for another transaction. As such, the acquisition of the like nature from the erstwhile owner of the petitioners by an agreement would be saved under Section 56 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (In short “the Adhiniyam of 1973”) and the State is empowered to exempt the stamp duty under Serial No.18 and 63 of the State list of Schedule-7. It has further been stated that the acquisition of the property is also covered by concurrent list of Entry 42, therefore, by invoking Section 56 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, lands were acquired and the acquisition cannot be invalidated and the Act was promulgated only to save those transactions between government instrumentalities and the private parties at the time of acquisition. 4. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the acquisition has been made in exercise of power under Entry 42 of the concurrent list and the acquisition, which related back to 1979, the said acquisition was under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam of 1973, which was subsequently amended by Section 56(A) of the Chhattisgarh Gram evam Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 with effect from 01.11.2000, therefore, the said acquisition, though made, under Entry 42 would save the acquisition and validation Act, which only protects & touches upon the transaction of the government instrumentalities. Therefore, the pith and substance of acquisition by State has been taken into consideration by the intent of legislature, consequently, the petitions have no substance. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petitions. 6. Since the virus of the Act of 2013, which is captioned as the Chhattisgarh Land Holdings (Validation) Act, 2013, has been challenged, the definition clause of it includes that the applicability of the Act was made limited to the government instrumentalities. The definition clause under Section 2(1)(a) & (b) is reproduced herein as under:- 2. Definition.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,---- (a) “Government Instrumentality” means Instrumentality which are under the control of Government as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and includes Raipur Development Authority and Chhattisgarh Housing Board; (b) “Government” means Government of Chhattisgarh. (2) The words and expressions not defined in this Act shall have the same meaning as defined under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959). 7. The Chapter of the said Act which states about the validity of sale, exchange and transfer of land. Since the transaction was by the government instrumentalities, when the exchange was made under agreement of exchange or agreement to sell & when the possession of land is taken over, the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act or the Indian Registration Act would not made it non est. For the sake of brevity, Chapter II of the Act is reproduced as below:- CHAPTER -II Validity of Sale, exchange and transfer of the land 3. For the sake of brevity, Chapter II of the Act is reproduced as below:- CHAPTER -II Validity of Sale, exchange and transfer of the land 3. “Validity of sale, exchange and transfer of the Land.----- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the land purchased or the possession of which is taken over under an agreement of exchange or agreement to sale, by the Government Instrumentality, the said purchase, agreement to sale or agreement of exchange, as may be notified once by the State Government in the Official Gazette, shall not be considered invalid merely by a reason of not being properly stamped or registered by the Government Instrumentality. (2) The possession of the said land shall be deemed to be validly transferred to the lease holders by the Government Instrumentality and all such transfer to Government Instrumentality and further transfer to the lease holders, as may be notified once by the State Government in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to be legal and valid and mutated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959). (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any charge made subsequent to the said purchase, agreement to sale or agreement of exchange, by the original owners in respect of ownership in land records under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20 of 1959), which have been agreed to be transferred or exchanged to the Government Instrumentality, shall be considered invalid.” 8. The possession of the lands was taken over by the respondent- Raipur Development Authority, which is a government instrumentality (Respondent No.3) long back in the year 1979 under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, 1973, which was prevailing at that time. Section 56 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam gives power to the Town and Country Planning Development Authority to acquire the land by agreement. Section 56, the then prevailing, of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is reproduced as under :- 56. Acquisition of land for Town and Country Development Authority. Section 56 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam gives power to the Town and Country Planning Development Authority to acquire the land by agreement. Section 56, the then prevailing, of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is reproduced as under :- 56. Acquisition of land for Town and Country Development Authority. -“The Town and Country Development Authority may at any time after the date of publication of the final town development scheme under Section 50 but not later than three years therefrom, proceed to acquire by agreement the land required for the implementation of the scheme and, on its failure so to acquire, the State Government may, at the request of the Town and Country Development Authority, proceed to acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No.1 of 1894) and on the payment of compensation awarded under that Act and any other charges incurred by the State Government in connection with the acquisition, the land shall vest in the Town and Country Development Authority subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.” 9. Entry 42 of the concurrent list of Schedule 7 talks about the acquisition and requisitioning of the property by the State Legislature and the Central Legislature, therefore, Central and State both are competent to make law. The language and wordings of concurrent list III, Schedule 7 of Entry 42 is reproduced as under:- 42. “Acquisition and requisitioning of property.” 10. Likewise, the State List (II) of Entry 18 gives the power to the State Legislation to frame law in the respect of the land which includes transfer and alienation of the land etc. The State legislature is having power to decide the rate of stamp duty in respect of the document. Particulars of Entry 18 and 63 of State List (II) which reproduced as under :- Entry 18. “Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization. Entry 63. Rates of stamp duty in respect of documents other than those specified in the provisions of List I with regard to rates of stamp duty.” 11. Entry 63. Rates of stamp duty in respect of documents other than those specified in the provisions of List I with regard to rates of stamp duty.” 11. A perusal of the Entry 91 of List I-Union list refers to the stamp duty in respect of rates of stamp duty in respect of bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes, bills of lading, letters of credit, policies of insurance, transfer of shares, debentures, proxies and receipts. 12. When the pith and substance of the legislature by the Act of 2013 is examined, it touches upon the acquisition by State and Raipur Development Authority being instrumentality of State, thus, law for acquisition of land can be promulgated by State. 13. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Security Association of India vs. Union of India, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 65 , in order to test the validity the pith and substance of the Act of 2013 and if there is conflict between two enactments, the issue of repugnancy arises, as under:- 48. “Article 254 of the Constitution is only applicable when the State law is in its “pith and substance” a law relating to an entry of the Concurrent List on which Parliament has legislated. It has been well established that to determine the validity of a statute with reference to the entries in the various lists, it is necessary to examine the pith and substance of the Act and to find out if the matter comes within an entry in List-III. The Court while examining the pith and substance of a statute must examine the whole enactment, its objects, scope and effect of its provision. Only if it is found that the two enactments cover the same matter substantially and that there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two, the issue of repugnancy arises. (See: State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534 ; Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development Authority, (2011) 3 SCC 139 , State of W. B. vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201 ) 14. Now coming back to the Act of 2013, which only applies to the transaction occurred between the government instrumentalities and not to the private party. Now coming back to the Act of 2013, which only applies to the transaction occurred between the government instrumentalities and not to the private party. Entry 42 of the concurrent List III gives power to the State Legislature to make law for acquisition and requisitioning of property, under which, initially CG Nagar tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 by invoking the Section 56, the lands were acquired by agreement. As of now, law relating to acquisition stood amended and Section 56-A has been inserted by C.G. Act No.11 of 2018 with effect from 01.11.2000, which reads as under :- 56-A. “No fees for Registration, stamp duty on instrument of agreement, plans or maps in connection with town Development scheme.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (No.16 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, no instrument executed between any owner of the land and the Town and Country Development Authority for giving effect to an agreement under this Act shall be chargeable with any fee under that Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (No.2 of 1899), no instrument executed between any owner of the land and the Town and Country Development Authority for giving effect to an agreement under this Act shall be chargeable with any duty under that Act.” 15. A reading of the aforesaid Act would show that notwithstanding anything contained in the Legislature, Act or any other law for the time being in force, the instrument executed between the owner of the land between the Town and Country Development Authority has already been exempted from payment of stamp duty. The said amendment has been carried out with effect from 01.11.2000, meaning thereby it has come into force from retrospective effect and thereby, the stamp duty and the registration charges have been exempted. The applicability of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act has not been made applicable. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Zaverbhai Amaidas Vs. The said amendment has been carried out with effect from 01.11.2000, meaning thereby it has come into force from retrospective effect and thereby, the stamp duty and the registration charges have been exempted. The applicability of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act has not been made applicable. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Zaverbhai Amaidas Vs. State of Bombay, reported in 1954 AIR SC 752 has laid down the guidelines and has held that repugnance between two statutes be ascertained on the basis of three principles :- (1) “Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field.” 17. Applying the aforesaid principles, the Act of 2013 would show that the Act of 2013 makes an enabling provision for the government instrumentalities such as Raipur Development Authority and Chhattisgarh Housing Board to acquire lands by agreement without payment of registration and stamp duty on the basis of mutual settlement agreement between the parties. Earlier Section 56 of the Act of 1973 stood amended by Section 56-A of the Act of 1973, which falls under Entry 42 of the concurrent list (List III) would save the legislation of 2013, which has limited operation to the government instrumentalities and cannot be said to be repugnant to the Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act. 18. In view of foregoing discussion, all the aforestated petitions stand dismissed.