important point
When mandate is given in a Section requiring compliance within a particular period, the strict compliance thereof is required.

Headnote:(a)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – When a Central Act is incorporated in a State Act, it is a case of legislation by incorporation and, therefore, the amendment brought about subsequently in the LA Act would not apply to the statutes in question – However, if the beneficial amendment of payment of compensation under the amended provisions of the LA Act was made applicable to the State statute and the owner of the land was held to be entitled to the beneficial payment of compensation, there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for not applying this principle so far as it relates to the acquisition of land – If the land is not acquired within the stipulated time, then the whole proceedings in acquisition comes to an end, and thereby the owner of the land would be entitled to retain his land which appears to be the superior right than the owner’s right to get the compensation for acquisition of his land. (Para 1)
       (2002) 7 SCC 657; (1998) 2 SCC 467 – Relied upon.
       (b)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Whether a mere procedural law – Procedure is a mode in which the successive steps in litigation are taken – Section 11A not only provides a period in which the land acquisition proceedings are to be completed but also provides for consequences – Lapsing of the acquisition of the land is a substantive right accrued to the owner of the land, and that in view thereof Section 11A of the LA Act is part of the law which creates and defines right, not adjective law which defines method of enforcing rights – It is a law that creates, defines and regulates the right and powers of the party. (Para 1)
       1995 Supp. (2) SCC 475- Impliedly overruled.
       (c)Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 127 – Section 127 is a special provision providing remedial measure to the owner of the land whose land is under the planning scheme for a long period of time, which would be interpreted in the facts and circumstances of each individual case – It does not have any universal application. (Para 1)
       (d)Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 127 – If no proceedings as provided under Section 127 are taken and as a result thereof the reservation of the land lapses, the land shall be released from reservation and shall be available to the owner for the purpose of development However, even after the release, the owner cannot utilize the land in whatever manner he deems fit and proper, but its utilisation has to be in conformity with the relevant plan for which the adjacent lands are permitted to be utilized. (Para 16)
       (e)Interpretation of statutes – If the plain words lead apparently to do some injustice or absurdity and at variance with, or not required by, the scope and object of the legislation, it would be necessary to examine further and to test, by certain settled rules of interpretation, what was the real and true intention of the legislature and thereafter apply the words if they are capable of being so applied so as to give effect to that intention and in such a situation the court is entitled to modify the language used by the legislature so as to achieve the intention of the legislature and to produce a rational construction – It is a cardinal rule governing the interpretation of the statutes that when the language of the legislature admits of two constructions, the one which would be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purported to be regulating should be chosen and the court should not adopt the construction which would lead to an absurdity or obvious injustice or which will introduce uncertainty, friction or confusion with the working of the system. (Paras 21 and 22)
       (1962) 1 SCR 896; AIR 1973 SC 1461; (1996) 3 SCC 644; AIR 1986 SC 137; AIR 1955 SC 830; AIR 1985 SC 1698 ; AIR 1965 SC 1296 – Relied upon.
       AIR 1959 Punj. 497; (1996) 1 ALT 537 (AP) – Approved.
       (f)Binding Precedent – Well-settled that the ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law that decided the dispute in the facts of the case and, therefore, a decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide – Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Case has reference to first step required to be taken by the owner after lapse of 10 years’ period without any step taken by the authority for acquisition of land, whereby the owners of the land served the notice for dereservation of the land. The Court was not called upon to decide the case on the substantial step, namely, the step taken by the authority within six months of service of notice by the owners for dereservation of their land which is second step required to be taken by the authority after service of notice – No legal issues, either with respect to interpretation of words “no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition” as stipulated under the provisions of Section 127 or any link of these words with steps to be taken on service of notice, were contended before the Court – Therefore, observations of the Court did not relate to any of the legal questions arising in the case and, accordingly, cannot be considered as the part of ratio decidendi and binding for the instant case. (Paras 27 and 30)
       (1976) 2 SCC 521; (1996) 6 SCC 44; (2002) 4 SCC 638; (2005) 7 SCC 234; (1997) 1 SCC 203; (1997) 6 SCC 538; (2003) 7 SCC 197 – Relied upon.
       (g)Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 126 and 127 – A conjoint reading of Sections 126 and 127 makes it apparent that the legislative intent is to expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town Planning Scheme and, therefore, various periods have been prescribed for acquisition of the owner’s property – When mandate is given in a Section requiring compliance within a particular period, the strict compliance thereof is required – The step taken under the Section within the time stipulated should be towards acquisition of land – It is a step of acquisition of land and not step for acquisition of land – Any step which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition. (Para 31)
       (h)Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 126 – Clause (c) of Section 126(1) merely provides for a mode by which the State Government can be requested for the acquisition of the land under Section 6 of the LA Act – The making of an application to the State Government for acquisition of the land would not be a step for acquisition of the land under reservation – The steps towards acquisition would really commence when the State Government permits the acquisition and as a result thereof publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act – The provisions of sections 4 and 5 of LA Act are purposely excluded for the purposes of acquisition under the MRTP Act – The publication of the declaration under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 126 read with Section 6 of the LA Act is a sine qua non for the commencement of any proceedings for acquisition under the MRTP Act – Thus, unless and until Section 6 declaration is issued, it cannot be said that the steps for acquisition are commenced. (Paras 32 and 33)
       (i)Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 126 – During one year of the publication of the draft regional plan, two steps need to be completed, namely, (i) application by the appropriate authority to the State Government under Section 126(1)(c); and (ii) declaration by the State Government on receipt of the application mentioned in clause (c) of Section 126(1) on satisfaction of the conditions specified under Section 126(2) – The application under Section 126(1)(c) could be said to be a step taken for acquisition of the land if such application is moved within the period of one year from the date of publication of regional plan – That having not been done, by no stretch of imagination, the step taken by the Municipal Corporation under Section 126(1)(c) of making an application could be said to be a step for the commencement of acquisition of the land. (Para 35)
       Facts of the case :
       Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is the subject matter of this case.
       Appellant No.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is the owner of an immovable property, i.e. a piece of land, bearing City Survey No.18/738, admeasuring about 5387.35 sq.yds. situated at Carmichael Road, Malabar Hill Division, Mumbai-400026.
        The land of the appellant was notified under the Corporation’s Development Plan sanctioned by the State Government on 8.7.1964 for development as “Open Space and Children’s Park”. On 11.1.1967, the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 repealed the Act of 1954 saving the proceedings already initiated under the Act of 1954.
       Proceedings were taken up for acquisition of the land. Since no award was made as per Section 11A of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the acquisition proceedings were declared by the Land Acquisition Officer to have lapsed. Later on a revised development plan sanctioned by the State Government on 6.7.1991 came into effect on 16.9.1991. On 3.2.1998 the appellants served notice through their advocates under Section 127 of the MRTP Act asking for re-notifying the property or to release the said property from reservation and accord sanction/approval to develop the property by the owner. In reply, the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai informed the appellants that purchase notice issued by their advocates was invalid as ten years had not expired since the sanction of the revised development plan, came into force on 16.9.1991. On 18.10.2000, the appellants again served purchase notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act. Again the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai informed the appellants that the notice was invalid as the period of ten years had not lapsed from the date of the revised plan.
       On 15.3.2002, the appellants addressed yet another notice to the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai under Section 127 of the MRTP Act stating therein that ten years period had lapsed on 16.9.2001 and since no proceedings for acquisition of the land as contemplated under Section 127(1) of the MRTP Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 having been commenced nor has any award been made or compensation paid, the property should be de-reserved. The purchase notice was served on the Municipal Commissioner, Greater Mumbai on 19.3.2002.
       The Improvement Committee of the Corporation passed Resolution No.183 recommending the Municipal Corporation to initiate the acquisition proceedings under the provisions of Section 126(2) and (4) of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act, as amended up to date, or in the alternative to recommend acquisition as provided under Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act.
       The State Government on 20.11.2002 issued a notification exercising the power conferred by sub-section (4) read with sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act.
       High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant.
       Findings of the Court :
       The publication of the declaration under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 126 read with Section 6 of the LA Act is a sine qua non for the commencement of any proceedings for acquisition under the MRTP Act. That having not been done within the stipulated six months of purchase application by the appellants, they are entitled to the relief claimed.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

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 question. However, beneficial amendment of payment of compensation under the amended provisions of the LA Act was made applicable and the owner of the land was held to be entitled to the beneficial payment of compensation. It appears, it was so held to save the Acts from the vice of arbitrary and hostile discrimination. There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for not applying this principle so far as it relates to the acquisition of land. If the land is not acquired within the stipulated time, then the whole proceedings in acquisition comes to an end, and thereby the owner of the land would be entitled to retain his land which appears to be the superior right than the owners right to get the compensation for acquisition of his land. A 2-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and Others,3 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 475 has held that Section 11A of the LA Act is a procedural provision and does not stand on the same footing as Section 23 of the LA Act. We find it difficult to subscribe to the view taken. Procedure is a mode in which the successive steps in litigation are taken. Section 11A not only provides a period in which the land acquisition proceedings are to be completed but also provides for consequences, namely, that if no award is made within the time stipulated, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Lapsing of the acquisition of the land results in owner of the land retaining ownership right in the property and according to us it is a substantive right accrued to the owner of the land, and that in view thereof we feel Section 11A of the LA Act is part of the law which creates and defines right, not adjective law which defines method of enforcing rights. It is a law that creates, defines and regulates the right and powers of the party. For this and the other reasons assigned by our learned brother, we are in agreement with him that the question involved requires consideration by a larger Bench and, accordingly, we agree with the reasons recorded by my learned brother for referring the question to a larger Bench. However, on consideration of the erudite judgment prepared by our esteemed & learned brother Balasubramanyan, J., regretfully we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree to the decision arrived at by him on interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and also reference of the case to a larger Bench. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a special provision and would be attracted in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the Section itself. The Section provides a procedure for the land owner to get his land de-reserved if steps are not taken by the State Government within the stipulated period and the relief which the owner of the land is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1116

important pointWhen mandate is given in a Section requiring compliance within a particular period, the strict compliance thereof is required.

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?

Cases Referred (17)

important point
When mandate is given in a Section requiring compliance within a particular period, the strict compliance thereof is required.