2011 (1) TMI 1343 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the MRTP Act is a self-contained Code or not, if so, to what effect? Whether, in any event, all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 with emphasis on Section 11A can be read into the provisions of the MRTP Act?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence and distribution of powers between the Centre and the State.
2. Interpretation of the MRTP Act and its relationship with the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Application of doctrines of legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation.
4. Whether the MRTP Act is a self-contained code.
5. Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the MRTP Act.
6. Constitutional validity and potential discrimination under Article 14.
7. Impact of federal structure on the application of legal principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legislative Competence and Distribution of Powers:
The judgment underscores the legislative competence of the Central and State Legislatures under Article 246 of the Constitution, demarcating their respective fields of legislative power enumerated in List I (Central List), List II (State List), and List III (Concurrent List) of Schedule VII. The judgment references the Constitution Bench decision in *Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India* to highlight that constitutionality of a law is essentially a question of power, which in a federal constitution, turns upon the construction of the entries in the legislative lists.

2. Interpretation of the MRTP Act and its Relationship with the Land Acquisition Act:
The MRTP Act is primarily focused on planning and development of land in Maharashtra, while the Land Acquisition Act deals with acquisition of land for public purposes. The judgment clarifies that the MRTP Act is a self-contained code and provides a comprehensive mechanism for planned development, including acquisition of land as an incidental aspect. The judgment emphasizes that the MRTP Act should be interpreted in a manner that does not hinder its primary objective of planned development.

3. Application of Doctrines of Legislation by Reference and Legislation by Incorporation:
The judgment explains that when there is a general reference to an earlier Act in a later Act, it is considered legislation by reference, and amendments to the former Act would apply to the later Act. However, when specific provisions of an earlier Act are incorporated into a later Act, only those provisions apply, and subsequent amendments to the former Act do not affect the later Act. The judgment cites several cases, including *Secretary of State for India in Council v. Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.*, to illustrate these principles.

4. Whether the MRTP Act is a Self-Contained Code:
The judgment concludes that the MRTP Act is a self-contained code, providing a complete legislative framework for planning, development, and acquisition of land in Maharashtra. It includes provisions for preparation, submission, and sanction of development plans, as well as mechanisms for resolving disputes and determining compensation.

5. Applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the MRTP Act:
The judgment holds that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides a time limit for making an award, does not apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. The MRTP Act has its own time frames and consequences for default, which are designed to ensure the effective implementation of planned development. The judgment emphasizes that applying Section 11A to the MRTP Act would frustrate its objectives and render its provisions unworkable.

6. Constitutional Validity and Potential Discrimination under Article 14:
The judgment addresses the argument that not applying Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the MRTP Act would result in discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. It concludes that the MRTP Act provides adequate compensation mechanisms and that the legislative intent was to exclude the application of Section 11A to ensure the effective implementation of planned development.

7. Impact of Federal Structure on the Application of Legal Principles:
The judgment considers the federal structure of the Constitution and the distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the State. It concludes that the MRTP Act, being a state legislation focused on planned development, falls within the legislative competence of the State under Entries 5 and 18 of List II. The judgment also notes that the principles of federalism and legislative competence do not preclude the application of specific provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MRTP Act, provided they do not conflict with its primary objectives.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concludes that the MRTP Act is a self-contained code and that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, introduced by Central Act 68 of 1984, can be read into the MRTP Act only to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation, and recourse to legal remedies. However, provisions like Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provide time frames and consequences for default, cannot be applied to the MRTP Act. The judgment emphasizes the need to interpret the MRTP Act in a manner that ensures its effective implementation and aligns with its primary objective of planned development.