Back
2011 (1) Supreme 494
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar, Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.711 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.14315 of 2009)
Decided on : 18-01-2011
Land Acquisition Act - Section 11A -Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976- Issue in consideration whether provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act are to be read into provisions of the BDA Act and that would result in lapsing of the acquisition proceedings upon expiry of the period specified therein - The Parliament has not enacted any law with regard to development the competence of which, in fact, exclusively falls in the domain of State Legislature with reference to Entries 5 and 18 of List II of Schedule VII- Both these laws cover different fields of legislation and do not relate to the same List, leave apart the question of relating to the same Entry- Acquisition being merely an incident of planned development, the Court will have to ignore it even if there was some encroachment or overlapping- The BDA Act does not provide any provision in regard to compensation and manner of acquisition for which it refers to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act- There are no provisions in the BDA Act which lay down detailed mechanism for the acquisition of property, i.e. they are not covering the same field and, thus, there is no apparent irreconcilable conflict- The BDA Act provides a specific period during which the development under a scheme has to be implemented and if it is not so done, the consequences thereof would follow in terms of Section 27 of the BDA Act- None of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act deals with implementation of schemes-Acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act cannot, in law, lapse if vesting has taken place-Hence, the question of applying the provisions of Section 11Aof the Land Acquisition Act to the BDA Act does not arise- Section 27 of the BDA Act takes care of even the consequences of default, including the fate of acquisition, where vesting has not taken place under Section 27(3)- Thus, there are no provisions under the two Acts which operate in the same field and have a direct irreconcilable conflict. (Para 77)
Land Acquisition Act - Section 11A -Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976- Issue in consideration whether provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act are to be read into provisions of the BDA Act and that would result in lapsing of the acquisition proceedings upon expiry of the period specified therein –Held BDA Act is a self-contained code- Provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in so far as they provide different time frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings ,cannot be read into the BDA Act- Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act (Para 78)
Facts of the Case :
Issue in consideration in present case was whether provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act are to be read into provisions of the BDA Act and that would result in lapsing of the acquisition proceedings upon expiry of the period specified therein.
Findings of the Court :
BDA Act is a self-contained code- Provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an acquisition controlled by provisions of the BDA Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in so far as they provide different time frames and consequences of default thereof, including lapsing of acquisition proceedings ,cannot be read into the BDA Act- Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under the provisions of the BDA Act.
Result : Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J. —
Leave granted.
2. A two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra1 [(2004) 8 SCC 505] had considered the question whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the ‘Land Acquisition Act’ or the ‘Central Act’) as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Central Act 68 of 1984’), can be read into the provisions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the MRTP Act’) for acquisition of land thereunder. The Bench was of the opinion that the observations made by another Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Joginder Singh 2 [(1995) Supp (2) SCC 475] did not enunciate the correct law by answering the said question in the negative and, thus, requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. While recording variety of reasons for making a reference to the larger Bench the learned Judges in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Order observed as under:
“20. We, therefore, see no good reason as to why the provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984 should not be read into an acquisition under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act, to the extent not precluded by the MRTP Act, 1966. Section 11-A being one such section, it may have to be applied to the acquisition under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act.
21. For these reasons, in our considered view, the decision in Sant Joginder Singh requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.”
3. This appeal came up for hearing before a larger Bench consisting of three learned Judges along with other matters in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra3 [(2007) 7 SCC 555] (hereinafter referred to as ‘Girnar Traders-II). In those appeals, inter alia, arguments were addressed as to the interpretation of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act as well as reading the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including Section 11A, into the provisions of the MRTP Act as legislation by reference. There was some divergence of opinion between the learned Judges hearing that matter. P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. (as he then was) expressed an opinion that both the questions; in regard to interpretation of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act as well as incorporation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act into that Act should be referred for consideration to a larger Bench. Expressing the majority view, B.N. Agrawal and P.P. Naolekar, JJ. (as they then were) agreed that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the law which creates and defines rights and is not an adjective law which defines method of enforcing rights. For this and other reasons assigned by P.K. Balasubramanyan, J., they agreed that the question involved required consideration by a larger Bench. However, in para 3 of the majority judgment, they regretfully declined to make reference on interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act to a larger Bench and decided the matter in that regard on merits. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court under appeal, the minority view expressed by Balasubramanyan, J. is as under:
“123. I would, therefore, hold that there has been sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 127 of the MRTP Act by the authority under the Act by the acquisition initiated against the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11446 of 2005 and the reservation in respect of the land involved therein does not lapse by the operation of Section 127 of the Act. But since on the main question in agreement with my learned Brothers I have referred the matter for decision by a Constitution Bench, I would not pass any final orders in this appeal merely based on my conclusion on the aspect relating to Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The said question also would stand referred to the larger Bench.
124. I therefore refer these appeals to a larger Bench for decision. It is for the larger Bench t
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
