2007 (8) TMI 745 - SC - Indian Laws

Town Planning Acts - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) has adopted the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by reference - Interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act - 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? - authority within six months of receipt of the purchase notice issued by the owner, applies to a State Government for acquiring the land as a step contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act - Writ Petition to permit the appellant to develop the reserved land for residential purposes - HELD THAT - The amendment introduced by Act 68 of 1984 provides that no declaration u/s 6 shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. It further provides that the Collector, after the declaration is made, has to take an order for acquisition, mark out the land available, issue notice to persons interested in the land to be acquired and for, passing an award containing the true area of the land acquired, the compensation that should be allowed for the land and the apportionment of the compensation among the claimants, if there are more than one. Section 11A introduced by Act 68 of 1984 provides that the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall stand lapsed. Thus, the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in the year 1984 provides for two lapses of the acquisition; one, in a case where a declaration u/s 6 is not made within one year of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and; two, the award itself not being made within a period of two years from the publication of the declaration. It is clear that when the MRTP Act was enacted, the Land Acquisition Act that was referred was the unamended Act of 1894. That Act did not contain either a provision for lapsing of the acquisition on the non issue of a declaration u/s 6 of the Act within one year of a notification u/s 4(1) of the Act or by the award not being rendered within two years of a declaration u/s 6 of the Act. These two time limits were prescribed by Act 68 of 1984. When we interpret Section 127 of the Act, it is not possible to forget the impact of Section 126(1) of the Act. Obviously, the provisions have to be read harmoniously. The court can only postulate the question whether the authority under the MRTP Act has done which it possibly could, in terms of the statute. Therefore, while reading Section 127, we have to take note of the fact that the authority under the MRTP Act can only make an application for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and nothing more. Therefore, when Section 127 of the MRTP Act says that if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition the reservation shall be deemed to lapse. We have to see what the Authority under MRTP Act has done. The first part of the provision above quoted is unambiguous and that is a case where the land is actually acquired. Or, in other words, the acquisition is complete. The second limb above quoted shows that it is possible to avert the lapse of the scheme if steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition. The step that the authority under the MRTP Act can commence, is the step of applying to the State Government to acquire such land under the Land Acquisition Act. After all, the legislature has given the authority a locus poenitentiae for invoking the machinery for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, when a purchase notice is received by it, in all reasonableness, what it can do is to make an application to the State Government to make the acquisition within six months of the receipt of the purchase notice. In Municipal Coproration of Greater Bombay vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association Ors. 1987 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT this Court approved the view of the Bombay High Court that it is enough if the application is made by the Authority for acquisition of the land. Suppose, immediately on receipt of a purchase notice, the authority under the MRTP Act makes an application to the Government to acquire the land and for administrative reasons or otherwise it takes the Government time to initiate the proceeding and the six months expire in between, can it be postulated that the reservation has lapsed? In that case we will be compelling the authority under the MRTP Act to do something that it has no power to do. According to me such an interpretation of the provision would be unreasonable and should be avoided. Here, the application has been made according to the respondents by the Chief Engineer as authorised by the local authority and to say that the letter written by him is unauthorised or is not adequate compliance of Section 127 of the MRTP Act appears to me to be unwarranted especially when we keep in mind the laudable objects of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Act serves a great social purpose and the approach of the court to an interpretation must be to see to it that the social purpose is not defeated as far as possible. Therefore, a purposive interpretation of Section 127 of the Act so as to achieve the object of the MRTP Act is called for. I would, therefore, hold that there has been sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 127 of the MRTP Act by the authority under the Act by the acquisition initiated against the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.11446 of 2005 and the reservation in respect of the land involved therein does not lapse by the operation of Section 127 of the Act. But since on the main question in agreement with my learned Brothers I have referred the matter for decision by a Constitution Bench, I would not pass any final orders in this appeal merely based on my conclusion on the aspect relating to Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The said question also would stand referred to the larger Bench. I therefore refer these appeals to a larger Bench for decision. It is for the larger Bench to consider whether it would not be appropriate to hear the various States also on this question considering the impact of a decision on the relevant questions. The papers be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Whether all provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984, can be read into the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for acquisitions under that Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act regarding the lapsing of reservations.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Land Acquisition Act Provisions to MRTP Act
The primary question in the appeals is whether the amendments introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by Act 68 of 1984, particularly Section 11A, which mandates that an acquisition would lapse if an award is not passed within two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, are applicable to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. The MRTP Act is a state legislation aimed at planning the development and use of land in regions and making provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes in respect of the plans under the Town Planning Scheme.

The appellants argued that the MRTP Act has adopted the Land Acquisition Act by reference, and thus any amendments to the Land Acquisition Act would automatically apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. They contended that since Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act provides for the lapsing of acquisition proceedings if an award is not passed within two years, the acquisitions under the MRTP Act should also lapse under the same conditions.

The respondents, representing the State of Maharashtra, countered that the MRTP Act did not incorporate the Land Acquisition Act by reference but only adopted it for limited purposes. They argued that since the MRTP Act did not provide for the lapsing of acquisitions, Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act could not be applied to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. They further contended that the MRTP Act adopted the Land Acquisition Act as it stood in 1966, and subsequent amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, including Section 11A, could not be read into the MRTP Act.

The judgment referred to several precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Secretary of State Vs. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Societies Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decisions in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam & Ors. and Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vasantrao & Ors., which supported the view that subsequent amendments to a Central Act do not automatically apply to a State Act that has incorporated the Central Act by reference.

The Court concluded that the MRTP Act did not intend for the lapsing of acquisitions and that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act could not be invoked to hold that an acquisition under the MRTP Act would lapse if an award is not passed within two years of the declaration.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act
Section 127 of the MRTP Act deals with the lapsing of reservations if the land is not acquired within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan or final Development plan comes into force, or if proceedings for the acquisition are not commenced within such period. The appellants argued that the acquisition proceedings must be started within six months of the receipt of a purchase notice, and merely writing to the government for acquiring the land is not sufficient.

The respondents contended that the steps contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act include making an application to the State Government for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act. They relied on the decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association & Ors., which held that it is sufficient if the authority makes an application to the State Government for acquisition.

The Court analyzed the provisions of the MRTP Act and concluded that the authority under the MRTP Act can only make an application to the State Government for acquiring the land and cannot initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is sufficient compliance with Section 127 if the authority makes an application to the State Government within six months of receiving a purchase notice.

Referral to Constitution Bench
The Court noted that the questions involved have significant implications for various City and Town Improvement Acts and the planning of cities and towns. It referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the principles of incorporation by reference and the interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

The papers were ordered to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.