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

2007 Supreme(SC) 1116

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, P.P.NAOLEKAR, B.N.AGARWAL
Girnar Traders – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when used with the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act)? What are the conditions under which Section 127 of the MRTP Act leads to lapsing and de-reservation of land, and when do steps toward acquisition commence? What is the proper understanding of what constitutes a "step for acquisition" under Section 126(1) and the relationship between Section 126, Section 6 declaration, and Section 127 in securing or de-reserving land?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when used with the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act)?

What are the conditions under which Section 127 of the MRTP Act leads to lapsing and de-reservation of land, and when do steps toward acquisition commence?

What is the proper understanding of what constitutes a "step for acquisition" under Section 126(1) and the relationship between Section 126, Section 6 declaration, and Section 127 in securing or de-reserving land?


JUDGMENT

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.—

1.We have had the benefit of perusing the judgment prepared by learned brother P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. in Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003 titled M/s. Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Others, wherein learned brother has taken into consideration various decisions of this Court, including decisions delivered by 3-Judge Benches, and various aspects considered therein, and thought it proper to refer the question regarding interpretation and applicability of Section 11A introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act) by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the MRTP Act) for consideration by a larger Bench. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Others,1 (2002) 7 SCC 657 and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Another,2 (1998) 2 SCC 467, on interpretation of the provisions of the Acts under challenge, has held that the LA Act was incorporated in those statutes, that is, they were cases of legislation by incorporation and, therefore, the amendment brought about subsequently in the LA Act would not apply to the statutes in qu

































































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top