SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 182 of 1969 and 42 to 45 of 1968, D/- 5-8-1970.
In Writ Petn. No. 182 to 1969.
In Writ Petns. Nos. 42 of 45 of 1968.
Ganpat Gosavi Patil and others, Petitioness
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others, Respondents.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 33 - Industrial area - Procedural discrimination - Petitioners are that Act is for incorporation, regulation and winding up of Maharashtra Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) and that Corporation is a trading one and therefore impugned legislation falls within Entry 43 of List I of Seventh Schedule of Constitution - On behalf of State it is said on other hand that Act is for growth and development of Industries in State Maharashtra and for acquisition of land in that behalf and Corporation is established for carrying out purposes of Act, and legislation is valid - Whether State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as State) is competent to enact Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Whether there is procedural discrimination between Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Held, Land Acquisition Act acquisition is at the instance of and for the benefit of a company whereas under present Act acquisition is solely by State for public purposes - Two Acts are dissimilar in situations and circumstances – Proviso to that sub-section is that no compensation exceeding such amount as State Government may by general orders specify to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by Collector without previous approval of State Government or such officer as State Government may appoint in that behalf - Proviso was construed on behalf of petitioners to be a fetter on judicial powers of Collector to determine compensation - Decision of Court will finally determine amount of compensation – Court are of opinion that there is no restriction on powers of Collector in matter of determination of compensation, although approval of Government may be necessary in the Government interest - Petitions dismissed.
Judgement
RAY, J.: These petitions raise two principal questions. First, whether the State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State) is competent to enact the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); secondly whether there is procedural discrimination between the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. The contentions of the petitioners are that the Act is for the incorporation, regulation and winding up of the Maharashtra Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and that the Corporation is a trading one and therefore the impugned legislation falls within Entry 43 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. On behalf of the State it is said on the other hand that the Act is for the growth and development of Industries in the State Maharashtra and for acquisition of land in that behalf and the Corporation is established for carrying out the purposes of the Act, and, therefore, the legislation is valid.
3. The true character, scope and intent of the act is to be ascertained with reference to the purposes and the provisions of the Act. The Act is one to make a special provision for securing the orderly establishment in industrial areas and industrial estates of industries in the state of Maharashtra, and to assist generally in the organisation thereof, and for that purpose to establish an Industrial Development Corporation, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
4. The Corporation is established for the purpose of securing and assisting the rapid and orderly establishment and organisation of industries in industrial areas and industrial estates in the State of Maharashtra. The Corporation consists of 8 members two of whom are nominated by the State Government of whom one shall be the Financial Adviser to the Corporation, one member nominated by the State Electricity Board, one member nominated by the Housing Board and three members nominated by the State Government, from amongst persons appearing to Government to be qualified as having and experience of, and having shown capacity in, industry or trade or finance or who are in the opinion of the Government capable of representing the interest of persons engaged or employed therein, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, who shall be the Secretary of the Corporation.
5. The functions of the Corporation shall be generally to promote and assists in the rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in the State of Maharashtra and to establish and manage industrial estates at places selected by the State Government, develop industrial areas selected by the State Government for the purpose and make them available for undertakings to establish themselves, assist financially by loans industries to move theirs factories into such estate or areas, and to undertake schemes or works, either jointly with other corporate bodies or institutions, or with Government or local authorities, or on an agency basis, in furtherance of the purpose for which the Corporation is established and all matters connected therewith.
6. An industrial area under the Act means any area declared to be an industrial area by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette which is to be developed and where industries are to be accommodated. An industrial estate under the Act means any site selected by the State Government, where the Corporation builds factories and other buildings and makes them available for any industries or class of industries. Development under the Act means the carrying out of building engineering, quarrying or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes redevelopment, but does not include mining operations. Amenity under the Act includes road, supply of water or electricity, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, conservancy and su
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.