Judgment

JUDGMENT:- S.L.P. Nos. 18079/91, 17883/90 are taken on board. Substitution allowed.

Leave granted in all the S.L.Ps.

2. A common question of law arises for decision in these matters. Hence, they are disposed of together.

3. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning, Act 37 of 1966, (for short the Act) was invoked for acquiring the land in question by the Regional and Town Planning Board for planned development in the State of Maharashtra. The facts in C.A. No. 4925/89 are sufficient for consideration and decision in these appeals. The Act was amended by Amendment Act, 1970 which came into force on February 17, 1971 as Act 14 of 1971. A notification under S. 125 of the Act was published on December 28, 1972. The land could be acquired by agreement with the owner, or making an application to the State Government for acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short the Central Act) in which event by operation of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 126, the declaration has to be made within three years from the date of the publication of notification under S. 125. The notification under S. 125 is treated as one (under) S.4(1) and the declaration under sub-section 2 of S. 126 as declaration under S. 6 of the Central Act. The failure to have the declaration published within three years entails with the prohibition to take further action in acquiring the land.

4. Sub-section (4) lifts the embargo thus:

"(4) If a declaration is not made within the period referred to in sub-section (2) or having been made, the aforesaid period expired on the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1970, the State Government may make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, subject to the modification that the market value of the land shall be the market value at the date of declaration in the Official Gazette made for acquiring the land afresh."

5. A reading of sub-section (4) would give us the legislative intent that if declaration is not made within three years or having been made, the afore-said period expired on the commencement of the Amendment Act, the State Government has been empowered to make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land in the manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 126. The rider to the exercise of the power of eminent domain is that the market value of the land should be as at the date of fresh declaration under S. 126(2) published in the Official Gazette. In other words, on publication of the notification under S. 125, the market value has been pegged down to the date of its publication in the State Gazette. Since there lapsed time between the dates of the notification and the declaration, the owner is relieved from the hardship of determination of compensation as per prices prevailing as on the notification under S. 125; and the rise in the market value between the dates of the publication of the notification and the declaration is set off. The Legislature while giving power to the State to issue declaration after the expiry of three years or having made the fresh declaration as valid, relieved the owner or person interested in the land from hardship; and the crucial date for determination of the compensation is the date on which the declaration under sub-section (4) of S. 126 is published in the Official Gazette treating the declaration as a fresh one. Thereby the legislative intention would be clear that though three years period had expired after the publication of the notification under S. 125 or the declaration made under sub-section (2) had expired before the commencement of the Amendment Act, the State Government has been given power to have the declaration published afresh. In other words, power was given to have the declaration published afresh so as to proceed with making the award but to determine the compensation as per the price prevailing as on th