Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1578 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTApplicability of provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court - HELD THAT:- The question whether the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act i.e., Section 23(2) and Section 23(1)(A) that relate to the payment of solatium and interest would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Resident Deputy Collector, Pune v. G.N. Landge & Anr., [1996 (11) TMI 491 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], and this Court observed by referring to a couple of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act are adopted by reference in the MID Act in the year 1967 in view of Section 33(5) of the MID Act. After so observing, the Court held that the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation was liable to pay interest in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions under the MID Act. It is not in dispute that after the said decision, the Corporation started paying interest and solatium to the claimants in terms of the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is another set of judgments in the cases of Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr. v. Vithal Rao & Ors., [1972 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT], NIT v. Vasantrao & Ors., [2002 (9) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT] and MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [2003 (3) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by applying the test of Article 14of the Constitution of India held that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated if land is acquired for public purposes, as discrimination cannot be made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land. In the case of GIRNAR TRADERS & DIGAMBAR MOTIRAM JHADHAV VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. & THE COMMISSIONER & ORS. [2011 (1) TMI 1343 - SUPREME COURT], Hon'ble Supreme Court was mindful of the purpose of legislation by reference and legislation by incorporation, viz. that in a legislation by reference all amendments to the former law, though made subsequent to the enactment of the later law, would ipso facto apply to the later law and in a case of legislation by incorporation the subsequent amendments in the former law could not be treated as a part of the incorporating Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though there is a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by Section 126(3) of the MRTP Act by incorporation, the amending provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies could be read into the acquisitions under the MRTP Act. The object of the provisions of Section 28-A is to provide similar compensation to the land holders that are affected by the same Section 4 notification. It cannot be said that Section 28-A was enacted only with a view to help the inarticulate and poor people. Section 28-A appears to have been enacted, as reflected from the statements of objects and reasons to remove inequality and discrimination in the payment of compensation. If the object of enacting the provisions of Section 28A is as such, it cannot be said that the said provisions cannot be read in the provisions of the MID Act so as to make the same applicable to the acquisitions under the MID Act. It is hereby held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act. The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for determination of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petition are allowed.
|