Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals by special leave against a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court dated October 14, 1994 in W.P. Nos.4023/89. The litigation arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 for framing a scheme and acquiring land for public purposes. The Nasik Municipal Corporation was the acquiring authority, while the respondents were landowners whose lands were subject to reservation and acquisition. The Final Development Plan was made on November 29, 1980, and a notification under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act was published on August 6, 1987. Subsequently, a notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published, and a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on September 16, 1989. An award was passed on September 22, 1989, and the respondents filed writ petitions on September 25, 1989, before the award was published on September 27, 1989. Meanwhile, the reservation of the land was deleted by a notification published on June 28, 1993, and the Final Plan was published on September 30, 1993. Upon representation by the Corporation, the Government issued a corrigendum on August 19, 1994, restoring the status quo ante with a slight modification. The High Court upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act but held that the award was invalid in law because the corrigendum required the procedure under Sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 of the MRTP Act to be followed afresh. The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in requiring re-publication. The respondents argued that deletion of reservation restored the status quo ante, necessitating the entire process, and that absence of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act invalidated the award. The Supreme Court held that once a notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are published, the public purpose becomes conclusive, and for any variation without substantial formalities, it is not necessary to follow the entire process of re-publication under Sections 28, 31 read with Section 37 of the MRTP Act. The Court relied on Section 127 of the MRTP Act, which permits acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for a different public purpose notwithstanding anything in the Act, and Section 127(3) deems the relevant plan or scheme to be suitably varied upon vesting of land in the State Government. On the issue of notice under Section 9, the Court held that absence of notice or failure to serve notice does not render the award invalid. Since the writ petition was filed immediately after the award and before its publication, the Court directed the appellant to make an application within six weeks under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference, and the Land Acquisition Officer was directed to refer the matter to the competent civil court within two months. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed without costs, setting aside the High Court's order quashing the award.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Modification of Reservation - Corrigendum Restoring Reservation - Sections 28, 31, 37, 126(4), 127 Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 and Sections 4(1), 6 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The High Court held that after deletion and restoration of reservation, fresh procedure under Sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 was required. The Supreme Court held that once notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act are published, public purpose becomes conclusive; for variation, full re-publication not necessary as Section 127 permits acquisition for different public purpose and Section 127(3) deems plan varied. Held that High Court's view incorrect and award need not be quashed. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Land Acquisition - Notice Under Section 9 - Effect of Non-Service - Sections 9, 18(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The respondent contended that absence of notice under Section 9 invalidates award. The Court held that absence of notice or failure to serve notice does not invalidate award. In view of the fact that writ petition was filed before publication of award, the Court directed appellant to make application under Section 18(1) within six weeks for reference and Land Acquisition Officer to refer to civil court within two months. Held that remedy lies by reference, not by invalidating award. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Land Acquisition - Reference Under Section 18(1) - Time Limit for Application - Section 18(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Court directed the appellant to make application within six weeks seeking reference and the Land Acquisition Officer to refer within two months, providing relief to landowner for compensation despite upholding award. Held that reference mechanism is appropriate remedy. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether after deletion and subsequent restoration of reservation by corrigendum, fresh procedure under Sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 was required before acquisition; whether absence of notice under Section 9 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invalidated the award; whether reference under Section 18(1) could be directed.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment quashing award set aside; appellant directed to file application under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act within six weeks; Land Acquisition Officer directed to refer matter to competent civil court within two months.
Law Points
- Section 127 MRTP Act permits acquisition under Land Acquisition Act for different public purpose without fresh procedure under Sections 28
- 31
- 37
- once notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act published public purpose conclusive
- variation of plan deemed under Section 127(3)
- absence of notice under Section 9 does not invalidate award
- remedy under Section 18(1) reference
