9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1578 - HC - Indian LawsApplicability of provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court - HELD THAT - The question whether the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act i.e., Section 23(2) and Section 23(1)(A) that relate to the payment of solatium and interest would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Resident Deputy Collector, Pune v. G.N. Landge Anr., 1996 (11) TMI 491 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , and this Court observed by referring to a couple of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act are adopted by reference in the MID Act in the year 1967 in view of Section 33(5) of the MID Act. After so observing, the Court held that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation was liable to pay interest in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions under the MID Act. It is not in dispute that after the said decision, the Corporation started paying interest and solatium to the claimants in terms of the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is another set of judgments in the cases of Nagpur Improvement Trust Anr. v. Vithal Rao Ors., 1972 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT , NIT v. Vasantrao Ors., 2002 (9) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT and MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ORS. 2003 (3) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by applying the test of Article 14of the Constitution of India held that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated if land is acquired for public purposes, as discrimination cannot be made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land. In the case of GIRNAR TRADERS DIGAMBAR MOTIRAM JHADHAV VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ORS. THE COMMISSIONER ORS. 2011 (1) TMI 1343 - SUPREME COURT , Hon'ble Supreme Court was mindful of the purpose of legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation, viz. that in a legislation by reference all amendments to the former law, though made subsequent to the enactment of the later law, would ipso facto apply to the later law and in a case of legislation by incorporation the subsequent amendments in the former law could not be treated as a part of the incorporating Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though there is a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by Section 126(3) of the MRTP Act by incorporation, the amending provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies could be read into the acquisitions under the MRTP Act. The object of the provisions of Section 28-A is to provide similar compensation to the land holders that are affected by the same Section 4 notification. It cannot be said that Section 28-A was enacted only with a view to help the inarticulate and poor people. Section 28-A appears to have been enacted, as reflected from the statements of objects and reasons to remove inequality and discrimination in the payment of compensation. If the object of enacting the provisions of Section 28A is as such, it cannot be said that the said provisions cannot be read in the provisions of the MID Act so as to make the same applicable to the acquisitions under the MID Act. It is hereby held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act. The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petition are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act to MID Act Acquisitions Background and Context: The primary question in these petitions is whether Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for re-determination of compensation based on a court's award, applies to land acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act). The lands of the petitioners were acquired under the MID Act, and they sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act after some landholders received higher compensation through court awards. Arguments by Petitioners: The petitioners argued that the provisions of Section 28-A should apply to acquisitions under the MID Act, citing precedents where courts had applied amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MID Act. They referenced the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur v. Shaikh Khatinabi wd/o Abdul Gaffar Shaikh, where it was held that the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act make a reference to the Land Acquisition Act by reference, thereby incorporating amendments like Section 28-A. They also pointed to the Supreme Court's judgment in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, which allowed for the incorporation of certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into the MRTP Act, despite it being a self-contained code. Arguments by Respondents: The respondents, represented by the State Government and the Corporation, contended that Section 28-A is sui generis and discriminatory, thus not applicable to the MID Act. They argued that Section 28-A was intended to benefit only those who could not file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act due to poverty or illiteracy. They also cited judgments where different principles of compensation were upheld for different statutes, arguing that the MID Act and the Land Acquisition Act serve different purposes and thus should not be conflated. Court's Analysis: The court examined the object and intent of both the MID Act and the Land Acquisition Act. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized the specific purpose of the MID Act in the development of industrial areas. The court also considered previous judgments that applied amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MID Act, such as Resident Deputy Collector, Pune v. G.N. Landge, where it was held that provisions like Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act applied to the MID Act. The court further analyzed the landmark judgments in cases like Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, where it was held that different principles of compensation for land acquired under different statutes would be discriminatory. The court noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra allowed for the incorporation of provisions related to compensation and legal remedies from the Land Acquisition Act into the MRTP Act, despite it being a self-contained code. Conclusion: The court concluded that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act should apply to acquisitions under the MID Act to avoid discrimination and ensure equality in compensation for similar quality of land. It held that the MID Act falls within the category of enactments where the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, vis-`a-vis compensation and legal remedies, should be read into. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners' applications for re-determination of compensation based on the court's award, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Final Judgment: The writ petitions were allowed, and it was held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act. The respondent was directed to re-determine the compensation for the petitioners based on the court's award. Key Paragraphs: - Paragraph 7: Discusses the object and intent of the MID Act and the Land Acquisition Act. - Paragraph 8: Refers to previous judgments applying amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MID Act. - Paragraph 10: Analyzes the Supreme Court's stance on different principles of compensation for land acquired under different statutes. - Paragraph 11: Considers the Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra judgment. - Paragraph 12: Concludes the applicability of Section 28-A to the MID Act. - Paragraph 14: Final judgment and directions to the respondent.
|
