Hemant Gupta, CJ.

A Division Bench of this Court on 27.3.2018 expressed its reservation with another Division Bench judgment of this Court passed on 6.4.2017 in bunch of appeals with main appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 91/2017 (Narmada Valley Development Authority and others Vs. Shashikant Patel) [Indore Bench], and the matter was referred to the Larger Bench on the following questions:-

“(1) Whether the State Act deals with acquisition of land or only deals with grant of compensation for use of surface of land?

(2) Whether the Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipeline, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ke Upyokta Ke Adhikaran Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2013 is repugnant to the Central Act for the reason that the same does not find mention in Schedule-IV of the Central Act, therefore, the State Act will not have any force of law?”

2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in appeal before the Supreme Court being Diary No.22153/2017 directed against an order passed by this Court in Narmada Valley Development Authority and others Vs. Balu, (for short ‘NVDA’), the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order of giving liberty to the appellant to file a review application in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2016) 9 SCC 791. Admittedly no review petition has been filed, therefore, as of now the order passed by the Division Bench in NVDA’s case is operative.

3. The State Government enacted “The Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipe Line, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ki Upyokta Ke Adhikaron Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012” [for short the ‘State Act’], providing for acquisition of right or user in land for laying underground pipeline, cable and duct for carrying of water, gas, sewage, industrial waste and transmission of electricity and fibre optics and for the matters connected therewith or incident thereto.

4. The Division Bench in NVDA’s case held that the State Act does not find mention in Schedule IV of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the ‘Central Act’). Therefore, the State is under obligation to pay compensation as per the Central Act. It was also held that the Central Act will supercede the State Act enacted by the State Legislature.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Schedule IV of the Central Act has saved thirteen central legislations in terms of Section 105 of the Central Act. Since the State Act is not included in Schedule IV of the Central Act, therefore, the State Act will stand superceded or abrogated by the Central Act. It is argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Laljibhai’s case deals with another Central Act namely the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of the Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [for short the ‘Petroleum Act’]. Therefore, the said judgment will not be relevant for determining the validity of the State Act. It is also pointed out that the Petroleum Act is one of the statutes which are mentioned in Schedule IV of the Central Act.

6. It is argued that the State Legislature is not competent to enact the State Act, as the Act in question derives its power to legislate in terms of Entry 42 of List III, of 7th Schedule of the Constitution, therefore, the State Act could not be enacted by the State Legislature as the Central Act is in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Supreme Court judgment reported as State of Kerala and others Vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and another, (2012) 7 SCC 106, in support of his contention that the State Act is repugnant to the Central Act. The relevant paragraph relied upon by the Petitioner reads as under:-

“78. To sum up, Articles 246(1), (2) and 254(1) provide that to the extent to which a State law is in conflict with or repugnant to the Central law, which Parliament is competent to make, the Central law shall prevail and the State