SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 269

2003(2) Supreme 500
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Mumbai High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation -Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4394 of 1997
Decided on 4-3-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : V.A. Bobde, Sr. Advocate, K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde, Prashant Jain, Chandra Prakash, Ajit Bhasme, Manish Pitale, S.S. Shinde, Uday U. Lalit, Anil J. Ahuja, Prakash J. Ahuja, Satyajit Saha, V.D. Khanna, Jamnadas, H. Ahuja, Ms. Bhavana Khemani, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act No. 68 of 1984 to Sections 23 and 28 which confer certain additional monetary benefits to the land holders are to be made applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 read with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1987.

Headnote:Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (=MRTP Act)-Sections 125, 126, 128 and 129-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in 1984) -Sections 23 and 28-Acquisition proceedings initiated under MRTP Act read with Land Acquisition Act in 1987 to acquire 5800 sq. meters land for the purpose of extension of bus stand situated near Satana town-Market value fixed at 300/- per sq. mt. and the statutory benefits under Sections 23 and 28 (as amended in 1984) were extended-Appeal against-Contention that additional monetary benefits under Sections 23 and 28 by 1984 amendments should not be made available to the acquisition under MRTP Act in 1987-Whether sustainable? (No) 1998(2) SCC 467 and (2002) 7 SCC 657-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : In the light of the analysis we have made of the provisions of MRTP Act and the two verdicts of this Court handed down by three Judge Benches, we must reject the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants and uphold the view taken by the High Court. The award of the district Judge, Nashik, in the Reference Case where- under the benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the L.A. Act as amended by the 1984 Act were extended to the respondents, calls for no interference. Some attempt was made to assail the conclusion of the Reference Court and the High Court vis-a-vis the quantum of market value. It is contended that the amount claimed by the land-holders/respondents is much less than what was awarded by the court. No such contention was raised before the High Court nor any material placed before us to substantiate this contention, Moreover, we are informed that a Review petition was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed. But no S.L.P. has been filed against that order. We need not dilate further on this contention. In the result the appeal is dismissed, but, without costs. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)

       

Judgement

P. Venkatarma Reddi, J- This appeal by Special leave arises out of the Judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a first appeal and cross-objection preferred under the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Joint District Judge, Nashik. The acquisition which is the subject matter of this appeal was in respect of 5,800 sq. meters land situated near Satana town. The market value as on 7-5-1987 was fixed at Rs. 300/- per Sq. metre and the statutory benefits under the amended Sections 23 and 28 of L.A. Act were extended.

2. The acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as MRTP Act ) read with the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1987 for the purpose of extension of bus-stand. Primarily, in this appeal, this Court is called upon to decide the question whether amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act by Central Act No. 68 of 1984 to Sections 23 and Section 28 which confer certain additional monetary benefits to the land holders are to be made applicable to the instant acquisition.

3. It may be noted that by Central Act 68 of 1984, sub-section (1-A) was added to Section 23 which entitled the claimants to receive the amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) upto the date of the award or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. It is ruled by the Constitution bench in Sunder vs. Union of India (2001 (7) SCC 211) that this additional amount is part of compensation awarded. Another benefit made available under Act 68 of 1984 is the enhancement of solatium payable as per sub-section (2) of Section 23 from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. Under Section 28, as amended, the claimant is entitled to receive interest on the excess compensation awarded at the increased rates.

4. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the said amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable to the acquisition of land resorted to under the MRTP Act, the reason being that those amendments to the Land Acquisition Act subsequent to the date of the commencement of MRTP Act 1966 cannot be read into the MRTP Act. In other words, the contention is that in matters relating to compensation and the allied benefits admissible to the claimants/land holders, the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as L.A. Act) as they stood on the date of enactment of the MRTP Act alone are relevant and the subsequent amendments thereto are liable to be ignored in relation to an acquisition under MRTP Act. The contention of the respondent-claimant is that any amendment made to the Land Acquisition Act more particularly with regard to determination and payment or compensation in respect or which there is no independent provision in the MRTP Act shall be made applicable for the acquisition under the MRTP Act. No contrary intention is expressed in the MRTP Act to exclude the future amendments to L.A. Act on the subject of compensation. It is further contended that Section 126 is an instance of referential legislation.

5. The answer to the question depends on the examination of provisions contained in Chapter VIII ("Land Acquisition") of MRTP Act and more particularly the interpretation to be placed on Section 126(3) of the said Act which reads as follows :

S. 126:

(3) "On publication of a declaration under the said section 6, the Collector shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of the land under the said Act; and provisions of that Act shall apply to the acquisition of the said land with the modification that the market value of the land shall be,-

(i) where the land is to be acquired for the purpose of a new town, the market value prevailing on the date of publication of the notifica

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top