TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt respondents-claimants have filed a reference under section 34 of the M.I.D.C. Act read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation before the Extra Joint District Judge, Pune, being Land Reference No. 75 of 1981. The trial Court after allowing both the sides to lead evidence, allowed the reference and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 79,110 per acre i.e. the amount of Rs. 25,15,041/- for the land admeasuring about 27 acres, 32 gunthas and 8 annas. The trial Court also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 30th August 1969 to 29th August 1970 and from the period 30th August 1970 till the actual payment at the rate of 15% per annum. The aforesaid award passed by the trial Court is challenged by the appellant. 3. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, mainly confined his arguments on two points. Firstly, he contended that the appellant has led evidence of comparable sale instances on the basis of which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,600 per acre. He further contended that the trial Court ought not to have taken into consideration various awards viz. Exhibits 56 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion, according to our opinion, the trial Court was right in considering the valuation of the land in question on the basis of the said awards which are at Exhibits 56 to 60. 6. In the present case, it is clear from the record that during the acquisition proceedings the Land Acquisition Officer called for the report and as per the said directions, the Executive Engineer, Building Communication Department, submitted the report of valuation of the land in question as is done in the case of other quarries referred to in the awards at Exhibits 56 to 60. However, the said report given by the Executive Engineer dated 19-8-1972 was suppressed by the Land Acquisition Officer and without referring to the same, he passed the award on the basis of comparable sale instances of agricultural lands. 7. In order to support the aforesaid contentions, the respondents-claimants had to make herculean efforts to bring the report, Exhibit 147, dated 19-8-1972 of the Executive Engineer, Building Communication Department. From the record, it appears that before the Court, an application was made by the respondent - claimants calling upon them to produce the copy of the said report in the Court. The afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lands and the lands at Bhosari are quarry lands. He further advised to refer the case to the Geologist's opinion about the quality of the stone. Further, the letter, Exhibit 146, clearly states that the lands were quarry lands and, therefore, the Executive Engineer gave detailed valuation report stating therein that the valuation is of Rs. 79,110 per acre. From the evidence led by the respondents-claimants, they have proved that in fact the Land Acquisition Officer called for the report of the Executive Engineer, Building Communication Department and as per his directions, the said report, copy of which is at Exhibit 147, was received by the Land Acquisition Officer. But subsequently the aforesaid report was suppressed and given go-by and the Land Acquisition Officer in his award never referred to this report. It is pertinent to note that during the course of acquisition along with this land, five other lands were also acquired by the appellant and in respect of the said lands, awards which are at Exhibits 56 to 60 were passed. In respect of the said five lands also, the Land Acquisition Officer called upon the Executive Engineer, Building Communication Department, to subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which was given much prior to the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act and more particularly in view of the section 33(5) read with section 38 of the M.I.D. Act. 10. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that in view of the express provisions of section 33(5) of the M.I.D. Act, 1961, the provisions of section 23 24 of the Land Acquisition Act are incorporated into M.I.D. Act in the year 1967. Secondly, according to him, in view of a specific provision under section 38 of the M.I.D. Act, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 4% and they are not entitled to the interest awarded by the District Judge in accordance with section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. As against this, Shri Dhakephalkar contended that considering the object of the legislation and the language in which section 33(5) of the M.I.D. Act is couched, it is more than clear that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are adopted by reference and not incorporated therein and the provisions of section 23(1)(a) , 23(2) and section 28 will be applicable to the present acquisitions. He also referred to the original section 33(5) as it stood before amendment, which contained a specific prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks to achieve. If the latter Act merely makes reference to the earlier Act or existing law, it is only by way of reference and all amendments subsequently made will have effect unless if, operation is saved by section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act or it is void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. 13. Reference may also be made to the judgment, relied upon by Shri Dhakephalkar, reported in 1978(2)ELT393(SC) ; New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Asst. Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad others, where the Supreme Court referred to the Judgment reported in Collector of Customs v. Sampathu Chetty, 1983ECR2198D(SC) and considered the usual and recognised formulae generally employed to effect incorporation. The Supreme Court quoted them as under : (i) ... shall, for that purpose, be deemed to form part of this Act in the same manner as if they were enacted in the body thereof...... (ii) the provisions of section ..... of the said Act shall apply as if they were herein enacted. Mr. Dhakephalkar contended that in the absence of such words it cannot be presumed that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act were incorporated in the M.I.D. Act. 14. Now, keeping the above observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (3) of section 1, such market value being determined on the basis of the use of the land on that date, an amount equal to twenty-five per cent of the increase, if any, (not including, however, any increase consequent on any development carried out on the land) in the market value of the land during the period between the date of such notification under sub-section (3) of section 1 and the date of notice, and an amount which in the opinion of the Collector represents the reasonable cost of development, if any (including in the case of agricultural land, the cost of any improvement carried out thereon in the course of agricultural operations) carried out on the land during that period by any person other than the Corporation. whichever is less ; (b) the special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which it would be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is not a market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser or the requirements of the Government or any local or statutory public authority; (c) where the value of the land is increased by reason of the use there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Act is in the manner for the time being laid down under this Act, and the references to the time or date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 were references to the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette. The language of section 33(5) clearly indicates that it adopts by general reference provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for determining compensation to be awarded to persons whose lands are acquired under the M.I.D. Act, 1961. Section 33(5) rests content by pointing its finger to the relevant provision of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of guiding the Collector in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the persons whose lands are acquired under the provisions of the M.I.D. Act 61. It is significant to note that the entire old section 33(5) which contained principles meant for guiding the Collector in determining compensation was substituted by new section 33(5) by Maharashtra Act 11 of 67. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Maharashtra Act 11 of 67 by which this section was substituted shows the obvious intention of the legislature namely to remove disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. Since the legislature had incorporated specific provisions of the Central Act, the necessary conclusion is that the legislature did not intend to apply the unspecific provisions of the Central Act to the exercise of the power under the Act. If the legislature would have merely adopted the Central Act, subsequent amendments to that Act made under Act 68 of 84 would have become applicable perforce. However, in para 12 of the said judgment while considering the question whether because no separate procedure was prescribed by the M.R.T.P. Act for determining the compensation, by necessary inference the Central Act was intended to apply mutatis mutandis to the acquisition under the Act, the Supreme Court held that since no separate procedure is prescribed under the M.R.T.P. Act to determine compensation for the land acquired under Act by necessary implication, compensation needs to be determined by applying the principles in section 23 of the Central Act. It further held : .......there is a distinction between procedural and substantive provisions of a statute. Determination of compensation by applying appropriate principles is relatable to substantive provision, whereas making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 23(1)(a), 23(2) and 28 were adopted by reference in the M.R.T.P. Act. The ratio of the said case can also be applied to the present case having regard to the language of section 33(5) and the intention of the legislature as is evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Maharashtra Act 11 of 67. We have therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act are adopted by reference in the M.I.D. Act in the year 1967 by Maharashtra Act 11 of 67 in view of section 33(5) of the M.I.D. Act substituted thereby. 20. Coming to the next contention of Mr. Deshpande viz, that, in view of the specific provision under section 38 of the M.I.D. Act, the claimants are entitled for interest @ 4% and they are not entitled for the interest awarded by the District Judge in accordance with section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, it will be necessary to have a closer look at both these sections. Section 38 of the M.I.D. Act reads as under : 38. When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the State Government shall pay the amount of compensation determined with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions and, therefore, the submission that in respect of interest there is a specific provision under the M.I.D. Act and, therefore, section 28 is not applicable is totally incorrect. 21. It is also significant to note that when by Act XI of 67, section 33(5) was amended, section 34 was not amended. In 1975 by Act No. XVIII of 75 section 34 was amended and instead of appeal reference was provided and it was further stated that in case of such a reference the provisions of Part III of the Land Acquisition Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to further proceeding in respect thereof. Section 28 is in Part III of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, it will apply to the present proceeding before the District Court as they are out of reference under section 34. In this connection, we endorse the reasoning given by the District Court in para 34 of its judgment as to why he has awarded interest as per section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 22. Since we are unable to accept any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the State in support of the present Appeal by Shri Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, First Appeal No. 832 of 90 must fail and is dismissed accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
