TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titions are heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The lands of the petitioners were acquired under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the MID Act for the sake of brevity) by the notifications issued under Section 32 of the MID Act in the years 1988-89. Separate awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the lands of the petitioners and certain other land-holders in the year 1991-92. Being aggrieved by the grant of meagre compensation, some landholders filed reference under the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference filed by the claimants were registered as land acquisition cases and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation, thereby granting additional compensation, interest and solatium. In pursuance of the awards passed in the reference cases, the petitioners filed separate applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeking re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. The respondent-Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1, that the provisions of the MRTP Act make a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by incorporation and though the MRTP Act is a self-contained code, the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, limited to the extent of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal remedies, could be read into the acquisitions controlled by the MRTP Act. It is submitted that even if it is held that the provisions of the MID Act make a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by incorporation, in view of the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act should necessarily apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act. It is submitted that the object of the provision of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is to grant similar compensation for similar quality of land to the interested parties and hence Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act provides a remedy and an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose lands are covered under the same notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 28-A in the Land Acquisition Act has been discussed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babua Ram and others v. State of U.P. And another, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 689. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that the Legislature has made a discriminatory policy between the poor and the inarticulate, to whom the benefit of Section 28-A is to be extended, and the comparatively affluent class, that has taken advantage of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that since, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the object of the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is to provide higher compensation to the poor and inarticulate people, the said provision cannot be read into the provisions of the MID Act, specially when the provision of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is a sui generis or stand alone provision though it is included in Part III of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no doubt held in the judgment reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1 [Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ors., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 568, to substantiate his submission that the classification sought to be made for determination of the amount of compensation towards acquisition of the land under the Defence of India Act vis- -vis Land Acquisition Act is a reasonable and valid one. It is submitted that it was held in the aforesaid reported decision that the amended provisions of Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act would not apply to the acquisition under the provisions of the Defence of India Act. It is submitted by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Dayal Singh Ors. v. Union of India Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 593, that a substantive right, such as the right to have the compensation redetermined must be expressly provided by the statute and since the right to seek redetermination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not expressly provided under the MID Act, the said provisions cannot be read into the MID Act or could be applied to the acquisitions under the MID Act by implication. The learned counsel sought for the dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. To answer the question involved in these writ petitions, it would be necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... develop it itself and establish industrial estates or may develop industrial areas. Acquisition or requisition of land falls under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List. In order to achieve growth of industries it is necessary not only to acquire land but also to implement the purposes of the Act. The Corporation is therefore established for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The pith and substance of the Act is establishment, growth and organization of industries, acquisition of land in that behalf and carrying out the purposes of the Act by setting up the Corporation as one of the limbs or agencies of the Government. The powers and functions of the Corporation show in no uncertain terms that these are all in aid of the principal and predominant purpose of establishment, growth and establishment of industries. 21. ....... It is to be remembered that the Act in the present case is a special one having the specific and special purpose of growth, development and organisation of industries in the State of Maharashtra. The Act has its own procedure and there is no provision in the Act for acquisition of land for a company as in the case of Land Acquisition Act. In the present case, acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration before this Court in the case of Resident Deputy Collector, Pune v. G.N. Landge Anr., reported in 1998 (2) Mh. L.J. 756, 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. This Court observed thus in paragraph 21 of the said reported judgment : 21. It is also significant to note that when by Act XI of 1967, section 33(5) was amended, section 34 was not amended. In 1975 by Act No. XVIII of 1975 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions under the MID Act. 10. There is another set of judgments in the cases of Nagpur Improvement Trust Anr. v. Vithal Rao Ors., reported in (1973) 1 SCC 500, NIT v. Vasantrao Ors., (supra) and MSRTC v. State of Maharashtra Ors., (supra), 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus in the judgment in the case of NIT Anr. v. Vithal Rao Ors., (supra) : 28. It would not be disputed that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated for lands acquired on the basis that the owner is old or young, healthy or ill, tall or short, or whether the owner has inherited the property or built it with his own efforts, or whether the owner is a politician or an advocate. Why is this sort of classification not sustainable? Because the object being to compulsorily acquire for a public purpose, the object is equally achieved whether the land belongs to one type of owner or another type. 29. Can classific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the judgment in the case of NIT v. Vithal Rao, (supra), it was observed that in so far as the owner is concerned, it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other. After so observing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the submission made on behalf of the Nagpur Improvement Trust that the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, specially Sections 23(1)(A), 23(2) and 28 would not apply to the acquisitions under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court added that the beneficial amendments in the Land Acquisition Act would have to be read into the State enactments including the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act to save the same from the vice of discrimination. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MSRTC v. State of Maharashtra (supra) that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as amended from time to time vis- -vis compensation would apply to the acquisitions under the MRTP Act and any other interpretation of the provisions of Section 126(3) of the MRTP Act would afflict the acquisitions by the vice of invidious discrimination and palpable arbitrariness, hit by Article 14 of the Constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition controlled by the provisions of Chapter VII of the MRTP Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as they provide different time-frames and consequences of default thereof including lapsing of acquisition proceedings cannot be read into the MRTP Act. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act being one of such provisions cannot be applied to the acquisitions under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act. While holding so, the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts referred to hereinabove, it would be necessary to hold by following the Seven Judges judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, (supra), that different principles of compensation cannot be formulated for land acquired under the different enactments because as far as the owner is concerned, it does not matter to him whether his land is acquired by one authority or the other. The judgment in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, reported in AIR 1954 SC 493, and the judgment in the case of Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan Ors., reported in (2002) 4 SCC 34, and relief on by the learned Associate Advocate General cannot be applied to the cases in hand as in the said reported cases, the scope of provisions of Article 14 has been discussed generally, without making a reference to acquisitions or enactments dealing with it and we have discussed the judgments directly on the issue involved in this judgment. So also, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the judgments reported in the case of Union of India v. Chajju Ram (Dead) By LRs. Ors., (supra), and Dayal Singh Ors. v. Union of India Ors., (supra) and relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquisitions under the MID Act. 13. We are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra Ors., (supra) which lays down that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of payment of compensation, recourse to remedies and the acquisition of the land should be read into the acquisitions controlled by the provisions of the MRTP Act. We find that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act provide for legal remedy and also provide for payment of compensation. It cannot be said on a reading of the provisions of Part III of the Land Acquisition Act, including the provisions of Section 28-A that the provisions of Section 28-A are sui generis. The provisions of Section 28-A are thoughtfully linked with the other provisions of Part III of the Land Acquisition Act and it cannot be said that they would not apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act. For the reasons recorded in the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra (supra), though it would be necessary to hold that the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act make a reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by incorporatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
