9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State of Maharashtra to enact the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. 2. Procedural discrimination between the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the State of Maharashtra to Enact the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961: The petitioners contended that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (the Act) was for the incorporation, regulation, and winding up of the Maharashtra Development Corporation (the Corporation), which is a trading entity. Therefore, the legislation falls within Entry 43 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The State argued that the Act is for the growth and development of industries in Maharashtra and for the acquisition of land in that regard, establishing the Corporation to carry out the purposes of the Act, making the legislation valid. The true character, scope, and intent of the Act are to be ascertained by its purposes and provisions. The Act aims to secure the orderly establishment of industries in industrial areas and estates in Maharashtra, assisting in their organization, and establishing an Industrial Development Corporation for related purposes. The Corporation's functions include promoting and assisting the rapid and orderly establishment, growth, and development of industries, managing industrial estates, developing industrial areas, and providing amenities like roads, water, electricity, and drainage. The Act's primary objectives are the orderly establishment and growth of industries in the Bombay-Poona sector and the dispersal of industries from congested areas to under-developed parts of the State. The availability of land is crucial for these purposes, necessitating compulsory land acquisition. The Act empowers the Corporation to provide essential amenities and develop industrial areas and estates. The establishment, growth, and development of industries fall within Entry 24 of the State List, subject to Entries 7 and 52 of the Union List. The Act does not encroach upon these entries as it deals with industries within the State List. Land acquisition falls under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List, and the Act's pith and substance are the establishment, growth, and organization of industries, acquisition of land, and carrying out the Act's purposes through the Corporation. The Corporation is not a trading entity as it is established by the Act for the development of industries, not for profit-making. It consists of nominees from the State Government, State Electricity Board, and Housing Board, and its functions and powers are in aid of the principal purpose of industrial development. The Act's provisions, including the recovery of sums as arrears of land revenue and the vesting of assets in the State Government upon the Corporation's dissolution, further indicate its non-trading character. 2. Procedural Discrimination Between the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The petitioners argued that there was procedural discrimination as the Land Acquisition Act provides a special procedure for acquiring land for companies, which was not followed in the present case. The Act in question is a special one with the specific purpose of industrial growth, development, and organization in Maharashtra, having its own procedure. The Act is designed to create planned industrial cities and prevent haphazard industrial growth. It aims to establish industrial estates and areas in developing parts of the State, ensuring the localization of industries to avoid pollution and congestion in residential areas. Unlike the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for land acquisition for public purposes and companies, the present Act focuses solely on public purposes related to industrial development. Regarding compensation, Section 33 of the Act allows compensation to be determined by agreement or by the Collector if no agreement is reached. The Collector is guided by the Land Acquisition Act's provisions, and the State Government's approval is required only if the compensation exceeds a specified amount. An appeal to the Court from the Collector's decision ensures that the final determination of compensation is judicially reviewed, indicating no restriction on the Collector's powers. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 is a valid piece of legislation. The Act's purpose is the establishment, growth, and development of industries in Maharashtra, and the Corporation is not a trading entity. The procedural differences between the Act and the Land Acquisition Act are justified by the Act's specific objectives. All contentions by the petitioners were dismissed, and the petitions were dismissed with costs.
|
