Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India decided a batch of appeals concerning land acquisition under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The State of Maharashtra had issued notifications under Section 125 of the MRTP Act for planned development. The main factual background involved one appeal, Civil Appeal No.4925/89, where a notification under Section 125 was published on 28 December 1972. The land could be acquired either by agreement or by applying to the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and under the proviso to Section 126(2), a declaration had to be made within three years. The notification under Section 125 was treated as one under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 126(2) as one under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Failure to publish the declaration within three years prohibited further action. Section 126(4) lifted this embargo by allowing the State Government to make a fresh declaration, subject to the modification that market value would be determined as on the date of the fresh declaration. The court examined whether the notification lapsed, the applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act (inserted by Amendment Act 68 of 1984), and the scope of the 1970 Amendment Act. The respondents argued that compulsory expropriation required restrictive interpretation, that the notification under Section 125 lapsed due to operation of Section 11A, and that the State should issue a fresh notification under Section 125 rather than a declaration under Section 126(4). The State contended that Section 126(4) empowered fresh declaration and Section 11A was not incorporated into the MRTP Act. The court relied on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association, 1988 (Supp) SCC 55, holding that if no declaration was made within three years, the compensation payable would be market value at the date of fresh declaration under Section 6, not at the date of notification under Section 4(1). The court reasoned that the notification under Section 125 did not lapse and fresh declaration under Section 126(4) was valid. On the applicability of Section 11A, the court applied the doctrine of incorporation versus adoption by reference as laid down in Gauri Shankar Gaur v. State U.P., 1994 (1) SCC 92. It found that Section 128 of the MRTP Act expressly incorporated only Sections 16, 17 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act; subsequent amendments like Section 11A did not automatically become part of the MRTP Act because the legislation used incorporation, not reference. Therefore, failure to make an award within two years from the declaration under Section 126(2) did not render the notification under Section 125 non est. The court also distinguished between substantive and procedural provisions: determination of compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act applied by necessary implication as a substantive provision, while the two-year period under Section 11A was procedural and not incorporated. Finally, the court agreed with the Full Bench decision in Shiorani v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Mh.L.J. 1821, that the Amendment Act applied not only to pending proceedings but also to later proceedings, rejecting the Division Bench's contrary view. The court allowed all appeals except Civil Appeal No.62/92, which was dismissed. It set aside the High Court orders in the allowed appeals, upheld the notifications and declarations, and granted liberty to the authorities to proceed further in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Notification and Fresh Declaration - Notification under Section 125 does not lapse and Section 126(4) permits fresh declaration - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 125, 126(2), 126(4) - The court considered whether failure to publish declaration under Section 126(2) within three years of notification under Section 125 resulted in lapse - Held that notification did not lapse; Section 126(4) empowered State Government to make fresh declaration after expiry or after commencement of Amendment Act 1970, with compensation determined at market value on date of fresh declaration (Paras 4-10) B) Land Acquisition - Applicability of Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Doctrine of incorporation vs adoption by reference - Section 11A not applicable to MRTP Act acquisitions - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 128; Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11A - The court held Section 11A not applicable because State legislature specifically incorporated only Sections 16, 17 and 24 via Section 128; since legislation by incorporation, subsequent amendments to Central Act do not automatically apply - Held that non-making of award within two years did not render notification under Section 125 non-est (Paras 11-13) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Substantive vs procedural distinction - Section 23 applies, Section 11A does not - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 126(4); Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - The court distinguished between determination of compensation by applying principles under Section 23 as substantive, and time limit for award under Section 11A as procedural - Held that Section 23 applies by necessary implication but Section 11A does not (Paras 13) D) Statutory Interpretation - Retrospective and Prospective Application - Amendment Act applies to later proceedings too - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1970 - The court agreed with Full Bench in Shiorani that Amendment Act applied to pending and subsequent proceedings - Held that Division Bench erred in limiting to pending only (Paras 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notification under Section 125 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lapses if declaration under Section 126(2) is not published within three years; whether Section 126(4) permits a fresh declaration and from what date compensation is determined; whether Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as inserted by Act 68 of 1984 applies to acquisitions under the MRTP Act; whether the 1970 Amendment Act applies only to pending proceedings or also to subsequent proceedings
Final Decision
All appeals except Civil Appeal No.62/92 allowed; Civil Appeal No.62/92 dismissed. Orders and judgments of High Court in allowed appeals set aside. Notifications and declarations subject matter of those appeals upheld. Authorities at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.
Law Points
- Notification under Section 125 of MRTP Act does not lapse on failure to make declaration under Section 126(2) within three years
- Section 126(4) permits fresh declaration with compensation at market value on date of fresh declaration
- Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act not applicable to MRTP Act acquisitions because Section 128 incorporates only specified provisions
- Doctrine of incorporation excludes subsequent amendments
- Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act applies substantively for compensation determination
- Section 11A procedural time limit not incorporated
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act
- 1970 applies to pending and subsequent proceedings
