Supreme Court of India
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPURversusSATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 196
- Decided
- 1 April 2013
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
Reservation of land under the 1966 Act lapses only when the State Government takes the decisive step of publishing a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act; mere resolutions or communications do not satisfy the "steps" requirement of Section 127.
Summary
The Shrirampur Municipal Council had reserved parcels of land for public purposes under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, but failed to acquire them within the statutory period. The landowners served purchase notices under Section 127 of the Act, after which the Council passed resolutions and sent letters to the Collector, but no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made. The Supreme Court examined whether such resolutions and communications constitute the "steps" required by Section 127 for the acquisition process to be deemed commenced. It held that only the State Government's active step of publishing a declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act qualifies as commencement of acquisition; mere resolutions or letters are insufficient. Consequently, the six‑month period after the notice elapsed without a declaration, so the reservation lapsed and the land was released to the owners. The Court affirmed the correctness of the majority judgment in Gimar Traders (II) and dismissed the appeals, leaving the High Court orders undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether reservation of land under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lapses if acquisition steps are not commenced within six months of a notice under Section 127.
- What constitutes "steps" as contemplated in Section 127 – whether resolutions, letters, or only a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the majority judgment in Gimar Traders (II) correctly interprets Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act.
- Whether the High Court's orders de‑reserving the land should be set aside.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Land reservationMaharashtra Regional and Town Planning ActSection 127Land acquisitionDeclaration under Section 6Reservation lapseSupreme Court interpretation
Judgment
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 664
A SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR
v.
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2733 of 2013 etc.)
APRIL 1, 2013.
B
[G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. GOKHALE AND RANJANA
PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
c s. 127 rlw s. 126 - Land reserved not acquired/no steps
commenced towards acquisition within six months of service
of notice uls 127 - Held: The reservation shall be deemed to
have lapsed and the land shall be deemed to have been
released from such reservation so as to enable the owner to
D develop the same - Steps towards acquisition would really
commence when State Government takes active steps for
acquisition of particular piece of land which leads to
publication of declaration uls 6 of 1894 Act - Expression "no
steps as aforesaid" used in s. 127 of 1966 Act has to be read
E in the context of provisions of 1894 Act and mere passing of
a resolution by Planning Authority or sending of a letter to
Collector or even to State Government cannot be treated as
commencement of proceedings for acquisition of land under
1966 Act or 1894 Act - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.6.
F
In the instant appeals filed by the Municipal Council,
the question for consideration before the Court was:
whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the
respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans
G prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 would be deemed to have lapsed
because the same were not acquired or no steps were
commenced in that respect within six months of the
service of notice u/s 127 of that Act.
664
H
STATE OF J & KAND ORS. v. SAT PAL 661
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
persons who have been appointed on merit against the A
said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been
appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as
the currency of select list had expired as soon as the
number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore,
appointment beyond the number of posts advertised would B
amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct
candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the
appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for
themselves. The question that remains for consideration
is whether there is any ground for challenging the c
regularisation of the private respondents."
The determination rendered by this Court in the aforesaid
judgments, substantiates the view expressed by us in the
foregoing paragraphs.
D 1
14. It is in the background of the aforesaid factual and legal
position, that the High Court recorded some observations in its
order dated 29.10.2011 passed in Contempt (SWP no.157 of
2011 ). The aforesaid observations were advisory in nature.
Rather than initiating action against the appellants for having E
missed the point, while considering the claim of the respondent
in contempt jurisdiction, the High Court in its wisdom required
the appellants to correct the mistake committed by the
appellants. The High Court did not, in the first instance, initiate
any coercive action against the appellants. In the aforesaid view F
of the matter it is apparent, that the appellants unnecessarily
preferred a letters patent appeal to assail the order of the High
Court dated 29.10.2011, on a technical plea, that the High Court
in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction could not have dealt with
the merits of the claim of the respondent. The same issue is G
being pursued now before us on technical grounds of
maintainability of the letters patent appeal preferred by the
appellants before the High Court (out of which the instant
appeals have arisen).
15. In so far as the technical objections raised by the H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A appellants is concerned, reliance, in the first instance was
placed by the learned counsel on Prithawi Nath Ram v. State
of Jharkhand & Others, (2004) 7 SCC 261, wherein this Court
opined, that a court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction,
dealing with an application alleging non compliance of its
B earlier order, could not examine the rightness or wrongness of
that order, nor could it issue further directions. Reliance was
also placed on V. M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju &
Anr., (2004) 13 SCC 610, wherein this Court held, that a
contempt court was precluded from adjudicating on the merits
c of a controversy by passing any supplemental order, in addition
to the order non compliance of which, was the basis of initiating
contempt proceedings. Finally, reliance was placed on
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. & Others v. Chunila/
Nanda & Others (2006) 5 SCC 399, dealing with the
" maintainability of an intra-court appeal against an order passed
0
by the High Court in exercise of its contempt jurisdiction.
16. It is not as if the pleas raised at the hands of the
appellants are not fully legitimate. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, for reasons which would emerge from our instant
E order, we would decline to invoke the jurisdiction vested in us
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, for debating and
deciding the technical pleas advanced by the appellants. We
would rather invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the cause in
F hand. Entertaining the instant appeals would defeat the ends
of justice for which the respondent Sat Pal had approached the
High Court. Entertaining the objections filed by the appellants
would result in deviating from the merits of the claim raised by
the respondent Sat Pal, before the High Court.
G
17. It gives us no pleasure to record that the State is not
an adversary, and ought not have behaved in the manner it has
chosen in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the first
instance, it failed to even file a response before the High Court,
to the writ petition preferred by the respondent Sat Pal. The
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 665
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER
Dismissing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 Section 126(1) of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lays down that
when any land is required or reserved for any of the
public purposes specified in any plan or scheme, the 8
Planning Authority, Development Authority, or any
Appropriate Authority can acquire the same as
mentioned therein. Section 126(2) empowers the State
Government to make a declaration u/s 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Proviso to this sub-section fixes the C
time limit of one year for making such declaration. Section
126(3) lays down that on publication of a declaration u/s
6 of the 1894 Act, the Collector shall proceed to take order
for the acquisition of the land under the 1894 Act and the
provisions of that Act shall apply to such acquisition with
the modification regarding market value as specified in D
Clauses (i) to (iii) of that sub-section. Section 126(4)
contains a non obstante clause and provides that if a
declaration is not made within the period referred to in
sub-s. (2), or having been made, such period expired at
the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional Town E
Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993, the State Government
can make fresh declaration under the 1894 Act. [para 17]
[686-A-B, E-H]
1.2 Section 127 of the 1966 Act lays down that if any F
land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
specified in any plan prepared and sanctioned under the
1966 Act is not acquired by agreement within ten years
from the date on which a final Regional plan or final
Development plan comes into force or if proceedings for G
the acquisition of such land under the 1966 Act read with
the 1894 Act are not commenced within that period, the
owner or any person interested in the land may serve
notice on the Planning Authority, Development Authority
or Appropriate Authority to that effect. That section H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A further lays down that if the land is not acquired or no
steps are commenced for its acquisition within six
months from the date of service of notice, the reservation
etc. shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall
be deemed to have been released from such reservation
B etc. so as to enable the owner to develop the same. [para
17] [686-H; 687-A-D)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr.
Hakimwadi Tenants' Association 1988 SCR 21 =1988 (Supp)
C SCC 55; Gimar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (Gimar
Traders II) 2007 (9 ) SCR 383 = 2007 (73) SCC 555; and
Gimar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (Gimar Traders Ill)
2011 (3) SCR 1 = (2011) 3 sec 1 - relied on.
1.3 This Court is further of the view that the majority
D in Girnar Traders (II) had rightly observed that steps
towards the acquisition would really commence when the
State Government takes active steps for the acquisition
of the particular piece of land which leads to publication
of the declaration u/s 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other
E interpretation of the scheme of ss. 126 and 127 of the
1966 Act will make the provisions wholly unworkable and
leave the landowner at the mercy of the Planning
Authority and the State Government. [para 21) [698-F-G]
1.4 The expression "no steps as aforesaid" used in
F s. 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of the
provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a
resolution by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter
to the Collector or even the State Government cannot be
treated as commencement of the proceedings for the
G acquisition of land under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act.
By enacting ss. 125 to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State
Legislature has made a definite departure from the
scheme of acquisition enshrined in the 1894 Act. But a
holistic reading of these provisions makes it clear that
H while engrafting the substance of some of the provisions
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRfRAMPUR v. 667
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER
of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other A
provisions, the State Legtslature has ensured that the
landowners/other interested persons, whose land is
utilized for execution of the Development plan/Town
Planning Scheme, etc. are not left high and dry. This is
the reason why time limit of ten years has been B
prescribed ins. 31(5) and also u/ss 126 and 127 of the
1966 Act for acquisition of land, with a stipulation that if
the land is not acquired within six months of the service
of notice u/s 127 or steps are not commenced for
acquisition, reservation of the land will be deemed to c
have lapsed. [para 22] [698-H; 699-A-E]
1.5 There is no conflict between the judgments of the
two-Judge Bench in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association
and the majority judgment in Gimar Traders (//). In both the
cases, this Court emphasized that if any private land is D
shown as reserved, allotted or designated for any
purpose specified in any Development plan, the same
may be acquired within ten years either by agreement or
by following the procedure prescribed under the 1894
Act, and if proceedings for the acquisition of land are not E
commenced within that period and a further period of six
months from the date of service of notice u/s 127 of the
1966 Act, then the land shall be deemed to have been
released from such reservation, allotment, etc. Further,
the observations contained in paragraph 133 of Gimar F
Traders (Ill) unequivocally support the majority judgment
in Girnar Traders (//). [para 20 and 24] [697-H; 698-A-B;
705-D-E]
1.6 This Court, therefore, holds that the majority G
judgment in Gimar Traders (II) lays down correct law and
does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench. It is
further held that the orders impugned in the instant
appeals are legally correct and do not call for interference
by this Court. [para 25] [705-E]
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference:
2007 (9) SCR relied on para 3.6
1988 SCR 21 relied on para 13
2011 (3) SCR 1 relied on para 13
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2733 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2009 of the
c High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad in
Writ Petition No. 4774 of 2006.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 2735, 2736, 2739, 2741, 2742, 2747, 2748, 2749
& 2750 of 2013.
D
Shekhar Naphade, Vibhu Bhakru, Atul Y. Chitale, V.V. Giri,
R. Balasubramanian, Ravindra K. Adsure, Jayashree Wad,
Ashish Wad, Mayank K. Sagar, Vinay Navare, Satyajeet
Kumar, Abha R. Sharma, Manish Pitale, C.S. Ashri, M.P. Jha,
E Ram Eqbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha, Karan Kanwal, Suchitra A.
Chitale, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Rajshri Duvey, Narendra
Kumar, Pravesh Thakur, Viraj Kadam, Sidaarth Shinde, D.M.
Nargolkar, M.Y. Deshmukh, Abhijeet B. Kale, Yatin M. Jagtap.
Shrikant R. Deshmukh, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Shankar Chillarge,
F Asha Gopalan Nair for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The question which arises for consideration in these
G appeals is whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by
the respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans
prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') will be deemed to have
lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were
H commenced in that respect within six months of the service of
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 669
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
notice under Section 127 of that Act. A
3. For the sake of. convenience, we shall first notice the
facts from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.
9934/2009.
3.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the owners in possession B
of the land comprised in Gat Nos. 44/1 /2 and 44/1 /4, CTS No.
2141 measuring about 2 hectares and 40 ares situated at
Shrirampur Taluka, Shrirampur (Maharashtra).
3.2 In the Development plan prepared for Shrirampur
under the 1966 Act, which was sanctioned by Director of Town C
Planning, Maharashtra vide order dated 9.8.1991 and enforced
with effect from 31.10.1991, the land of respondent Nos. 1 to
5 was shown as reserved for primary school and playground.
However, the same was not acquired in accordance with the
provisions of Section 126 of the 1966 Act read with the Land D
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act').
3.3 After eleven and a half years of the reservation of their
land, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 issued purchase notice dated
29.5.2003 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, which was duly
served upon the Chief Officer of the appellant - Shrirampur E
Municipal Council, Shrirampur. The relevant portions of the
notice are extracted below:
"PURCHASE NOTICE
UNDER SECTION 127
F
Date:- 29.5.2003 ·
To,
Hon. Chief Officer,
G
Nagar Parishad, Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar
Reference:-Development Plan (R) Shrirampur approved
Subject:- Purchase Notice Under Section 127 of H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R.
A Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
We, the undersigned
1) Shrimati Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkhar, Age - 70,
Occupation - Farming, House work,
B
2) Alka Shivaji Dawkher, age 47 years, Occupation -
household 86 Agril
3) Sudhil Shivaji Dawkher, age 28 years, Occupation :
Agril
c
4) Vijay Shivaji Dawkher, age 26 years, Occupation: Agril
5) Rushikesh Shivaji Dawkher, age 24 years, Occupation:
Agril
D
All R/o Mahadeo Mala, Shrirampur, Ward No. 7, Dist.
Ahmednagar.
Hereby give notice under Section 127 of the above stated
Act that, the land located within the city limits of Shrirampur
E out of Gat No.44 admeasuring approx. 2.5 Hectare is
owned by me and it has been reserved as Reservation
No.40 in Town Planning Scheme No.4. This reservation
has been reserved approx. 1 Acre for play ground. The
sanctioned Development Plan (R) Shrirampur of
F Shrirampur City has been granted final sanction by the
Director, Town Planning (State) Pune vide their notification
no. D. P. Shrirampur (Part) R/TPV 4-2837 Dated 31/12/
91 and although more than 10 years duration has passed
after getting the final sanction to the Development Plan the
G Nagar Parishad has taken no action to acquire th!'! said
land.
Through this notice you are being notified that, in case of
your failure to take suitable action to acquire the said land
within 6 months of the receipt of the said notice the land
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 671
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. £1NGHVI, J.]
under reservation in Gat no. 44 shall become free from A
reservation. Please take note. The said notice is being
issued in this behalf."
3.4 The notice issued by respondent Nos.1 to 5 was
considered in the meeting of the General Body of the appellant 8
held on 30.8.2003 and the following resolution was passed:
"It is seen from the note submitted on the above subject
that the land bearing Gat No. 44, CTS No.2141 (part) within
the Municipal Limit is owned by Smt. Satyabhamabai
Davkhar, out of which 4815 sq.mtr. of area is reserved for C
Play Ground, vide reservation No.40 and for Primary
School & Play Ground, vide reservation No.41. Since the
Municipal Council has not acquired the land under said
reservations after 10 years of sanction of Development
Plan, the land owner Smt. Davkhar has served the D
purchase notice under section 127 of Maharastra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966.
The above referred lands are included in Town Planning
Scheme No.IV. But the above reservations are not included E
in Draft sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No. IV. And
hence the notice served by the owner is tenable and also
if the land acquisition proposal is not submitted to the
· Collector within the period of Six months from the date of
issue of notice the land will be released from reservations.
F
Therefore, by passing this Resolution the sanction is given
to initiate the land acquisition process for the above two
reserved sites. And accordingly the proposal should be
submitted immediately to the Collector, Ahmednagar. The
expenses that would be required for the land acquisition G
and to take possession and the allied expenses are also
hereby allowed."
3.5 In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, the President
of the appellant sent communication dated 24.12.2003 to H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R.
A Collector, Ahmednagar and requested him to take action for
the acquisition of land comprised in Gat No. 44, CTS No. 2141
(part). The Collector sought clarification on some issues. The
appellant did the needful vide letter dated 9.2.2004. Thereafter,
land was got measured through City Survey Officer and
B proposal dated 25.1.2007 was submitted to the Collector for
its acquisition. The Collector passed order dated 17.4.2007
under Section 52-A of the 1894 Act and authorized Sub-
Divisional Officer, Shrirampur to take the necessary steps.
3.6 In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed Writ
C Petition No. 4774/2006 for grant of a declaration that the
reservation of their land stood lapsed in November, 2003
because the same had not been acquired within six months of
the service of notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. In
support of their plea, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 relied upon the
D judgment of this Court in Gimar Traders v. State of
Maharashtra and Others (2007) 7 SCC 555 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Gimar Traders II') and of the Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and Others
v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2009 (2) ALL MR 347.
E
3. 7 The appellant contested the writ petition and pleaded
that in terms of resolution dated 30.8.2003, a proposal had
been sent to the Collector for the acquisition of land belonging
to respondent Nos. 1to5 and vide order dated 17.4.2007,.the
F latter authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer to do the needful.
3.8 The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the
judgments in Shivram Kondaji Sathe and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Others (supra) and Satyabhamabai v. State
of Maharashtra and Others (2008) 1 ALL MR 399 as also the
G judgment of this Court in Gimar Traders (II) and held that
reservation of the land in question will be deemed to have
lapsed because no steps were taken for acquisition thereof
within six months of the receipt of purchase notice. The High
Court also directed the appellant to de-reserve the land so as
H to enable the respondents to develop the same.
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 673
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
4. We may now briefly notice the facts from the other A
appeals.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.8756/2009
4.1 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners in possession
of land comprised in Gat No.92 (part) admeasuring 45,983 B
square meters situated at Shirasgaon within the municipal
boundary of the appellant. In the Development plan, 6,360
square meters land belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4 was
shown as reserved for playground. They issued purchase notice
dated 20.6.2002 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Thereafter, C
the General Body of the appellant passed resolution dated
3.8.2002 for sending a proposal to the District Collector for
initiation of the acquisition proceedings. After six months, the
appellant sent detailed proposal dated 6.12.2002 to the District
Collector for acquiring the land, but no concrete step was taken D
in that regard.
4.2 Writ Petition No. 3626/2006 was filed by respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 for de-reservation of their land on the ground that
the same had not been acquired within ten years of E
enforcement of the Development plan and expiry of six months
counted from the date of receipt of purchase notice. The
Division Bench of the High Court referred to the judgment of
this Court in Gimar Traders (II) and allowed the writ petition by
making the following observations:
F
"In face of clear dictum of the Supreme Court we have no
hesitation in rejecting the contention raised on behalf of
Respondents that they started acquisition proceedings
after receipt of purchase notice under Section 127 of the
said Act within time. In fact when the present Writ Petition G
came up for admission after long period from the date of
filing, counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents
informed that till this date acquisition proposal is pending
with the Collector. To that effect we can safely rely on letter
dated 2117/2006 from -Respondent No.5 to Respondent H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A No.2 forwarding some documents for the purpose of
starting acquisition proceedings in respect of Petitioners'
plot of land. Said letter is at page 36 in the present Petition.
Even though Respondent No.5 filed their affidavit in reply
dated 21/1112006 nowhere they stated that they complied
B the notice under Section 127 of the said Act issued by the
Petitioners. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the
Respondents failed to acquire the Petitioners' property in
question within particular time as per MRTP Act."
C Appeal arising out of SLPCClNo.9617/2009
5. The facts of this appeal are identical to the appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No.9934/2009. The only difference is that
this appeal pertains to the land comprised in Gat No.44/2
admeasuring 5,536 square meters.
D
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.13280/2009
6. Delay condoned.
6.1 In the Development plan for Greater Mumbai, which
E was sanctioned on 23.12.1991, land comprised in CS 231 and
1/231, Byculla Division, Maulana Azad Road, E-Ward, Mumbai
admeasuring 2,526.78 square meters was shown as reserved
for recreation ground.
6.2 Respondent No.1 Prabhat (Stove and Lamp) Products
F Company Pvt. Ltd., which owns the land, issued purchase
notice dated 7.12.2005 to the Planning Authority, i.e., Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 127 of
the 1966 Act. There is some dispute about receipt of the notice
by the competent authority but it is an admitted position that
G vide letter dated 15.12.2005, the Municipal Commissioner of
MCGM asked the Improvement Committee to initiate the
acquisition proceedings. On 3.6.2006, the Planning Authority
submitted a proposal to the State Government for taking action
in accordance with Section 126(1)(c) of the 1966 Act. The State
H Government issued notification dated 19.1.2007 under Section
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 675
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
126(2) and (4) of the 1966 Act read with Section 6 of the 1894 A
Act.
6.3 Writ Petition No .. 2303/2007 filed by respondent Nos.
1 and 2 for quashing Notification dated 19.1.2007 was allowed
by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in B
Gimar Traders (II).
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.34943/2012
7.1 In the Development plan sanctioned for Pune Municipal
Corporation, which was notified on 5.1.1997, Plot No. 59, Gat C
No.17 situated at Kondhwa Khurd, Pune admeasuring 4,400
square meters was shown as reserved for construction of
children's park.
7.2 Respondent - Sahyadri Land Development D
Corporation, which owned the land, issued purchase notice
· dated 17.6.2010 under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, but the
Planning Authority did not take steps for the acquisition of land.
Writ Petition No. 4457/2011 filed by the respondent was
allowed by the High Court by relying upon the judgment of this E
Court in Gimar Traders (II) and the respondent was allowed to
develop the land.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.36117/2012
8.1 In the Development plan sanctioned for Pune Municipal F
Corporation, plot bearing CTS No.1135 (old 54) owned by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 situated at Sadashiv Peth was shown
as reserved for children's playground. After three years, the
Commissioner inspected the site and opined that the same
was not suitable for the purpose for which it was shown as G
reserved. Thereupon, the Corporation passed resolution dated
19.4.1990 for de-reservation of the plot. The State Government
sanctioned the de-reservation in September, 1992 and directed
the Commissioner of the Corporation to take necessary action
under Section 37 of the 1966 Act. The latter issued notice dated
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A 18.5.1995 and invited objections against the proposed de-
reservation of the plot and its inclusion in the residential zone.
However, no final decision was taken in the matter in view of
circular dated 21.12.1995 issued by the State Government.
B 8.2 After 14 years, the Standing Committee of the
Corporation, in its meeting held on 2.6.2009, decided to take
steps for the acquisition of land belonging to respondent Nos.
1 and 2. This decision was approved by the General Body of
the Corporation vide resolution dated 23.7.2009. In compliance
C of that resolution, Deputy Chief Engineer of the Corporation
sent letter dated 10.8.2009 to the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to sanction initiation of the acquisition proceedings. On
20.5.2010, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued purchase notice
under Section 127 of the 1966 Act. Thereafter, they filed Writ
Petition No.9895/2011 for grant of a declaration that reservation
D of their plot has lapsed because the same was not acquired
within six months of the receipt of purchase notice. The Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared
that reservation of land belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2
will be deemed to have lapsed because steps were not taken
E for acquisition thereof.
Appeal arising out of SLPCClNo.36213/2012
9. The facts of this appeal are substantially similar to that
of the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 36117/2012 except
F that the plot owned by respondent Nos.1 to 5 is CST No.1134,
Sadashiv Peth, Pune admeasuring 567.72 square meters
whereas the plot which is subject matter of the other SLP is
CST No.1135, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. The reservation of CST
No.1134 was for children's playground. The High Court allowed
G Writ Petition No.9895/2011 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 on
the ground that the land had not been acquired within six months
of the receipt of purchase notice issued under Section 127 of
the 1966 Act.
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 677
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.25742/2012 A
10. In theDevelopment plan of Shrirampur (part) (revised),
land bearing Gat No.108 (74 Are) belonging to respondent
No.1 was shown as reserved for garden and he was given
alternative plot in Gat No.92 (part). However, that Gat was also B
reserved for playground/stadium. After nine years, the State
Government in exercise of the power vested in it under Section
86 (1) of the 1966 Act sanctioned the Town Planning Scheme.
Respondent No.1 issued notice dated 5.1.2002 under Section
127 of the 1966 Act. The same was received in the office of
the appellant on 8.1.2002. The General Body of the appellant C
passed resolution dated 2.5.2002 whereby approval was
accorded to the acquisition of land comprised in Gat No.92
(part). Accordingly, letter dated 28.6.2002 was sent to District
Collector, Ahmednagar for initiation of the acquisition
proceedings. Writ Petition No.3399/2007 filed by respondent D
No.1 for grant of a declaration that reservation of his plot had
lapsed on account of the Planning Authority's failure to take
steps for the acquisition of land within six months of the receipt
of purchase notice was allowed by the Division Bench of the
High Court vide order dated 27.7.2012. E
Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.26103/2012
11. In the Development plan of Shrirampur, Gat Nos. 91
and 92 (part) belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 4 were shown
as reserved for vegetable market and shopping centre and F
also for library and cultural centre. The Town Planning Scheme
was sanctioned by the State Government on 22.9.1999. Some
of the owners issued purchase notice dated 2.8.2002.
Thereupon, the General Body of the appellant passed
resolution dated 14.10.2002 for commencement of the G
acquisition proceedings. On 27.1.2003, the appellant sent
requisition to the District Collector for the acquisition of land
owned by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Writ Petition No.1314/2012
filed by them was allowed by the Division Bench of the High
Court on 26.7.2012 and it was declared that the reservation of H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A their land had lapsed because of the Planning Authority's failure
to acquire the land within six months of the receipt of purchase
notice.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C) ................cc No.17030/2012
B 12. Delay condoned.
12.1 The factual matrix of the case is similar to the appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No.26103/2012. Respondent Nos.1 and
2 issued purchase notice, which was received by the
competent authority sometime in December, 2007. In the next
C six months no steps were taken for the acquisition of land.
Therefore, by applying the ratio of Girnar Traders (II). the High
Court declared that the reservation of the land belonging to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has lapsed.
D Arguments
13. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for some of the appellants, argued that the majority
judgment in Girnar Traders (II) deserves to be considered by a
larger Bench because the same is contrary to the plain
E language of Section 127 of the 1966 Act and the earlier
· judgment in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr.
Hakimwadi Tenants' Association 1988 (Supp) SCC 55.
Learned senior counsel then referred to the order reported as
Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association
F v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2008 (4) SCALE 737 and
other orders by which directions were given for hearing of some
of the special leave petitions along with Civil Appeal No.3703/
2003 and Civil Appeal No. 3922/2007 and argued that in view
of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Gimar Traders v.
G State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to
as 'Girnar Traders (Ill)'), the question arising in these appeals
should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Shri Naphade further
argued that the reservation of the respondents' land cannot be
treated to have lapsed on the expiry of six months from the date
H of receipt of purchase notices because in the meanwhile, the
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHR!RAMPUR v. 679
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
appellants had passed resolutions and sent communications A
to the District Collector to commence the acquisition
proceedings and this· amounted to taking of steps within the
meaning of Section 127 read with Section 126(1){c) of the
1966 Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
expression "no steps as aforesaid are commenced" appearing B
in Section 127 must take their colour from Clause (c) of Section
126(1) and, therefore, making of an application by the Planning
Authority or sending of a communication to the District
Magistrate to start the acquisition proceedings must be treated
as sufficient to avert the consequence envisaged under Section C
127 of the 1966 Act. Shri Naphade relied upon the Constitution
Bench judgment in Girnar Traders (Ill) and argued that in view
of the proposition laid down therein that Section 11A of the 1894
Act, which provides that the acquisition proceedings will lapse
if the award is not passed within two years from the date of
publication of the declaration made under Section 6(1) of that D
Act, is not applicable to the scheme of the 1966 Act, the period
of six months specified in Section 127 of that Act cannot be
treated as sacrosanct and there cannot be deemed lapsing of
the reservation merely because the State Government and/or
its delegate fails to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of E
land covered by the Regional plan/Development plan. Other
learned counsel adopted the arguments of Shri Naphade.
14. Learned counsel for the private respondents supported
the impugned orders and argued that the majority view in Gimar F
Traders (II) cannot be ignored on the ground that it is.
inconsistent with the earlier judgment in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants'
Association (supra) because that judgment had been
considered and explained in the subsequent judgment.
G
Relevant Provisions
15. Section 2 of the 1966 Act contains definitions of various
terms including 'Development Authority', 'Development plan',
'local authority', and 'Planning Authority'. Section 21(1) imposes
a duty on every Planning Authority to carry out a survey, prepare H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A an existing land-use map and a draft Development plan for the
area within its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of
a Regional plan, where there is such a plan and submit the
same to the State Government for sanction. Section 21 (2) lays
down that every Planning Authority constituted after the
B commencement of the Act shall prepare a draft Development
plan within a maximum period of three years. Section 21(4)
provides that if the Planning Authority fails to perform its duty
in accordance with Section 21(1) or (2), an officer appointed
by the State Government shall do the needful and recover the
c cost thereof from the funds of the Planning Authority. Section
22 enumerates the contents of a Development plan. Clauses
(b) and (c) of that section read as under:
"22. Contents of Development Plan.- A Development
plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the use
D of land in the area of the Planning Authority shall be
regulated, and also indicate the manner in which the
development of land therein shall be carried out. In
particular, it shall provide so far as may be necessary for
all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-
E
(b) proposals for designation of land for public purpose,
such as schools, colleges and other educational
institutions, medical and public health institutions, markets,
social welfare and cultural institutions, theatres and places
for public entertainment, or public assembly, museums, art
F
galleries, religious buildings and government and other
public buildings as may from time to time be approved by
the State Government;
(c) proposals for designation of areas for open spaces,
G playgrounds, stadia, zoological gardens, green belts,
nature reserves, sanctuaries and dairies;"
Sections 23 to 31 lay down the procedure to be followed in the
preparation and sanction of Development plans. Section 25
H prescribes the outer limit of six months, counted from the date
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 681
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the declaration of intention of a Planning Authority to prepare A
a Development plan for the purpose of carrying out a survey of
the lands within its jurisdiction and preparation of an existing
land-use map. Section 26 prescribes an outer limit of two years
from the date of publication of notice under Section 23 for
preparation of a draft Development plan and publication of B
notice in the Official Gazette. In either case, the State
Government can extend the time prescribed by the statute
subject to the condition that the time specified in Section 26
cannot be extended for more than six months in aggregate.
Section 28(4) (un-amended) contained a limitation of three c
months within which the Planning Committee was required to
consider the report of the Planning Authority or the concerned
officer including the objections and suggestions received by it
or him. In terms of Section 30, the Planning Authority is required
to submit the draft Development plan to the State Government D
within a period of twelve months. Section 31 (un-amended) laid
down an outer limit of one year for sanction or return of the draft
Development plan. P;roviso to Section 31 (1) empowered the
State Government to extend the period for sanction of the draft
Development plan or refusal thereof. Section 31 (5) lays down E
that if a Development plan contains any proposal for the
designation of any land for a purpose specified in Clauses (b)
and (c) of Section 22 and if such land does not vest in the
Planning Authority, the State Government shall not include that
land in the Development plan, unless it is satisfied that the
Planning Authority will be able to acquire the same by private F
agreement or compulsory acquisition within a period of 1O
years from the date on which the Development plan comes into
operation. Section 32 postulates preparation of interim
Development plan and Section 33 provides for plan or plans
showing proposals for development of any area or areas. G
Section 34 postulates preparation of a Development plan for
additional area. Section 35 contains a fiction and provides that
a Development plan duly sanctioned by the State Government
before the commencement of the 1966 Act shall be deemed
to be a final Development plan. Section 37 contains the H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A procedure for modification of the final Development plan.
Section 38 lays down that the Development plan should be
revised at least once in 20 years. If the State Government so
directs, the Development plan can be revised even before the
expiry of 20 years. Chapter IV of the 1966 Act (Sections 43 to
s 58) contains provisions relating to control of development and
use of land included in the Development plans. Chapter V
(Sections 59 to 112) deals with Town Planning Schemes and
Chapter VII (Sections 125 to 129) contains provisions for
compulsory acquisition of land needed for a Regional plan,
c Development plan or Town Planning Scheme.
16. Section 126, which provides for the acquisition of land
required or reserved for any of the public purposes specified
in any plan or scheme prepared under the 1966 Act and
Section 127, which envisages lapsing of reservation in certain
D contingencies read as under:
"Section 126. Acquisition of land required for public
purposes specified in plans. - (1) When after the
publication of a draft Regional Plan, a Development or any
E other plan or town planning scheme, any land is required
or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in any
plan or scheme under this Act at any time the Planning
Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be,
any Appropriate Authority may, except as otherwise
provided in section 113A acquire the land,-
F
(a) by an agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or
(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner
or the lessee, subject, however, to the lessee paying the
G lessor or depositing with the Planning Authority,
Development Authority or Appropriate Authority, as the
case may be, for payment to the lessor, an amount
equivalent to the value of the lessor's interest to be
determined by any of the said Authorities concerned on
H the basis of the principles laid down in the Land
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 683
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Acquisition Act, 1894, Floor Space Index (FSI) or A
Transferable Development Rights (TOR) against the area
of land surrendered free of cost and free from all
encumbrances, and also further additional Floor Space
Index or Transferable Development Rights against the
development or construction of the amenity on the B
surrendered land at his cost, as the Final Development
Control Regulations prepared in this behalf provide, or
(c) by making an application to the State Government for
acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, C
and the land (together with the amenity, if any, so
developed or constructed) so acquired by agreement or
by grant of Floor Space Index or additional Floor Space
Index or Transferable Development Rights under this
section or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the D
case may be, shall vest in the Planning Authority.
Development Authority, or as the case may be, any
Appropriate Authority.
(2) On receipt of such application, if the State Government E
is satisfied that the land specified in the application is
needed for the public purpose therein specified, or if the
State Government (except in cases falling under section
49 and except as provided in section 113A) itself is of
opinion that any land in any such plan is needed for any
public purpose, it may make a declaration to that effect in F
the Official Gazette, in the manner provided in section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), in respect
of the said land. The declaration so published shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, be
deemed to be a declaration duly made under the said G
section:
Provided that. subject to the provisions of sub-section (4),
no such declaration shall be made after the expiry of one
year from the date of publication of the draft Regional Plan, H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A Development Plan or any other Plan, or Scheme, as the
case may be.
(3) On publication of a declaration under the said section
6, the Collector shall proceed to take order for the
acquisition of the land under the said Act; and the
B
provisions of that Act shall apply to the acquisition of the
said land, with the modification that the market value of the
land shall be,-
(i) where the land is to be acquired for the purposes of a
c new town, the market value prevailing on the date of
publication of the notification constituting or declaring the
Development Authority for such town;
(ii) where the land is acquired for the purposes of a Special
D Planning Authority, the market value prevailing on the date
of publication of the notification of the area as an
undeveloped area; and
(iii) in any other case the market value on the date of
publication of the interim development plan, the draft
E development plan, or the plan for area or areas for
comprehensive development, whichever is earlier, or as
the case may be, the date or publication of the draft town
planning scheme:
F Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall affect the
date for the purposes of determining the market value of
land in respect of which proceedings for acquisition
commenced before the commencement of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (Second
G Amendment) Act, 1972 (Mah. XI of 1973):
Provided further that, for the purpose of clause (ii) of this
sub-section, the market value in respect of land included
in any undeveloped area notified under subsection (1) of
section 40 prior to the commencement of the Maharashtra
H Regional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act,
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 685
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
1972 (Mah. XI of 1973), shall be the market value prevailing A
on the date of such commencement.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to
sub-section (2) and in subsection (3), if a declaration is
not made within the period referred to in subsection (2) or
8
having been made, the aforesaid period expired at the
commencement of the Maharashtra Regional Town
Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993, the State Government
may make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), in the manner
provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, subject C
to the modification that the market value of the land shall
be the market value at the da,.te of declaration in the Official
Gazette made for acquiring the land afresh.
Section 127. Lapsing of reservation - D
If any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
specified in any plan under this Act is not acquired by
agreement within ten years from the date on which a final
Regional plan, or final Development plan ·comes into force
or if proceedings for the acquisition of such land under this
E
Act or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),
are not commenced within such period, the owner or any
person interested in the land may serve notice on the
Planning Authority, Development Authority or as the case
may be, Appropriate Authority to that effect, and if within F
six months from the date of service of such notice, the land
•
is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced
for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation
shall be deemed to have lapsed, and thereupon, the land
shall be deemed to be released from such reservation, G
allotment or designation and shall become available to the
owner for the purpose of development as otherwise,
permissible in the case of adjacent land under the relevant
plan."
H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A Analysis of Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act
17. Section 126(1) lays down that when any land is required
or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in any plan
or scheme, the Planning Authority, Development Authority, or
any Appropriate Authority can acquire the same by an
8 agreement by paying an agreed amount, or by granting the
landowrn:~r or the lessee Floor Space Index or Transferable
Development Rights in lieu of the area of land surrendered free
of cost and free from all encumbrances and further additional
Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights against
C the development or construction of the amenities on the
surrendered land at his cost, or by making an application to the
State Government for acquiring such land under the 1894 Act.
Once the land is acquired by an agreement under Section
126(1)(a) or by grant of Floor Space Index or additional Floor
D Space Index or Transferable Development Rights under
Section 126(1)(b) or under the 1894 Act, the same vests in the
Planning Authority, Development Authority or Appropriate
Authority, as the case may be. Section 126(2) empowers the
State Government to make a declaration under Section 6 of
E the 1894 Act. Proviso to this sub-section fixes the time limit of
one year for making such declaration. Section 126(3) lays
down that on publication of a declaration under Section 6 of
the 1894 Act, the Collector shall proceed to take order for the
acquisition of the land under the 1894 Act and the provisions
F of that Act shall apply to such acquisition with the modification
regarding market value as specified in Clauses (i) to (iii) of that
sub-section. Section 126(4) contains a non obstante clause
and provides that if a declaration is not made within the period
referred to in sub-section (2), or having been made, such period
G expired at the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional
Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993, the State Government
can make fresh declaration under the 1894 Act. This is subject
to the rider that in such an event, market value of the acquired
land shall be determined with reference to the date of fresh
H declaration. Section 127 speaks of lapsing of reservation. It
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 687
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
A
lays down that if any land reserved, allotted or designated for
any purpose specified in any plan prepared and sanctioned
under the 1966 Act is not acquired by agreement within ten
years from the date on which a final Regional plan or final
Development plan comes into force or if proceedings for the
acquisition of such land under the 1966 Act read with the 1894 B
Act are not commenced within that period, the owner or any
person interested in the land may serve notice on the Planning
Authority, Development Authority or Appropriate Authority to
that effect. That section further lays down that if the land is not
acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition within C
six months from the date of service of notice, the reservation
etc. shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land shall be
deemed to have been released from such reservation etc. so
as to enable the owner to develop the same.
D
18. The scope of Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act
· was considered by a two-Judge Bench in Dr. Hakimwadi
Tenants' Association (supra). The facts of that case were that
the Planning Authority had published a draft Development plan
in respect of 'D' ward showing the property belonging to late E
Dr. Eruchshaw Jamshedji Hakim as reserved for recreation
ground. The final Development plan was made effective from
7.2.1967. However, no action was taken for the acquisition of
land. The owner served purchase notice dated 1. 7.1977 on the
Commissioner of the Corporation. After about six months, the
F
Corporation passed resolution dated 10.1.1978 for the
acquisition of land and sent an application to the State
Government for taking necessary steps. Thereupon the State
Government issued Notification dated 7.4.1978 under Section
6 of the 1894 Act. The writ petition filed by Dr. Hakimwadi
Tenants' Association for quashing the notification was allowed G
by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who
held that the acquisition proceedings commenced by the State
Government under Section 126(2) at the instance of the
Planning Authority were not valid because steps were not taken
for the acquisition of land under Section 126(1) of the 1966 Act H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A read with Section 6 of the 1894 Act within the prescribed time.
The learned Single Judge observed that the period of six
months prescribed under Section 127 began to run from the
date of service of purchase notice and the Corporation h~d to
take steps to acquire the property before 4.1.1978, which was
B not done. The Division Bench of the High Court approved the
view taken by the learned Single Judge and held that the most
crucial step was the application to be made by the Corporation
to the State Government under Section 126(1) of the 1966 Act
for the acquisition of land and such step ought to have been
c taken within the period of six months commencing from
4.7.1977. This Court expressed agreement with the counsel for
the Corporation that the words 'six months from the date of
service of such notice' used in Section 127 of the 1966 Act
were not susceptible to a literal construction, but observed:
D "8. .. .......................... it must be borne in mind that
the period of six months provided by Section 127 upon the
expiry of which the reservation of the land under a .
Development Plan lapses, is a valuable safeguard to the
citizen against arbitrary and irrational executive action.
E Section 127 of the Act is a fetter upon the power of
eminent domain. By enacting Section 127 the legislature
has struck a balance between the competing claims of the
interests of the general public as regards the rights of an
individual."
F
(emphasis supplied)
The Court then made detailed analysis of Section 127 of the
1966 Act and held:
G "10. Another safeguard provided is the one under Section
127 of the Act. It cannot be laid down as an abstract
proposition that the period of six months would always
begin to run from the date of service of notice. The
Corporation is entitled to be satisfied that the purchase
H notice under Section 127 of the Act has been served by
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 689
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the owner or any person interested in the land. If there is A
no such notice by the owner or any person, there is no
question of the reservation, allotment or designation of the
land under a development plan of having lapsed. It a
fortiori follows that in the absence of a valid notice under
Section 127, there is no question of the land becoming B
available to the owner for the purpose of development or
otherwise. In the present case. these considerations do not
arise. We must hold in agreement with the High Court that
the purchase notice dated July 1. 1977 served by
Respondents 4-7 was a valid notice and therefore with the c
failure of the appellant to take any steps for the acquisition
of the land within the period of six months therefrom. the
reservation of the land in the Development Plan for a
recreation ground lapsed and consequently. the impugned
notification dated April 7. 1978 under Section 6 of the Land
0
Acquisition Act issued by the State Government must be
struck down as a nullitv.
11. Section 127 of the Act is a part of the law for
acquisition of lands required for public purposes, namely,
for implementation of schemes of town planning. The E
statutory bar created by Section 127 providing that
reservation of land under a development scheme shall
lapse if no steps are taken for acquisition of land within a
period of six months from the date of service of the
purchase notice. is an integral part of the machinery F
created by which acquisition of land takes place. The word
"aforesaid" in the collocation of the words "no steps as
aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition" obviously
refer to the steps contemplated by Section 126(1). The
effect of a declaration by the State Government under sub- G
section (2) thereof, if it is satisfied that the land is required
for the implementation of a regional plan, development
plan or any other town planning scheme, followed. by the
requisite declaration to that effect in the official Gazette,
in the manner provided by Section 6 of the Land H
\
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R.
A Acquisition Act, is to freeze the prices of the lands affected.
The Act lays down the principles of fixation by providing
firstly, by the proviso to Section 126(2) that no such
declaration under sub-section (2) shall be made after the
expiry of three years from the date of publication of the draft
B regional plan, development plan or any other plan,
secondly, by enacting sub-section (4) of Section 126 that
if a declaration is not made within the period referred to
in sub-section (2), the State Government may make a fresh
declaration but, in that event, the market value of the land
c shall be the market value at the date of the declaration
under Section 6 and not the market value at the date of
the notification under Section 4, and thirdly. by Section 127
that if any land reserved. allotted or designated for any
purpose in any development plan is not acquired by
agreement within 10 years from the date on which a final
D
regional plan or development plan comes into force or if
proceedings for the acquisition of such land under the Land
Acquisition Act are not commenced within such period.
such land shall be deemed to be released from such
reservation. allotment or designation and become
E available to the owner for the purpose of development on
the failure of the Appropriate Authoritv to initiate any steps
for its acquisition within a period of six months from the
date of service of a notice by the owner or any person
interested in the land. It cannot be doubted that a period
F of 10 years is long enough. The Development or the
Planning Authority must take recourse to acquisition with
some amount of promptitude in order that the
compensation paid to the expropriated owner bears a just
relation to the real value of the land as otherwise. the
G compensation paid for the acquisition would be wholly
illusorv. Such fetter on statutorv powers is in the interest
of the general public and the conditions subject to which
they can be exercised must be strictly followed."
(emphasis supplied)
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 691
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
19. The same issue was again considered in Gimar A
Traders (II). S.P. Building Corporation was the owner of a piece
of land bearing City Sy. No. 18/738 admeasuring about
5387.35 square yards situated at Carmichael Road, Malabar
Hill Division, Mumbai. The Development plan prepared by
Bomba Municipal Corporation was sanctioned by the State B
Government on 6.1.1967 and was enforced on 7.2.1967. The
belonging to S.P. Building Corporation was notified as "open
space and children's park". After coming into force of the 1966
Act, the landowners served notice under Section 127 of that
Act for de-reservation of the land. Two similar notices were c
issued by S.P. Building Corporation on 18.10.2000 and
15.3.2002. after about eight months the State Government
issued notification dated 20.11.2002 under Section 126(2) and
(4) of the 1966 Act read with Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Writ
Petition No.353/2005 filed by S.P. Building Corporation D
questioning the notification issued by the State Government was
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing
that Resolution dated 9.9.2002 passed by the Improvement
Committee of the Municipal Corporation would constitute a step
as contemplated by Section 127 of the 1966 Act. The Division E
Bench further held that Section 11A of the 1894 Act, as
amended, is not applicable to the proceedings initiated for the
acquisition of land under the 1966 Act. Civil Appeal No.3922/
2007 filed by S.P. Building Corporation was decided by the
three Judge Bench along with Civil Appeal No.3703/2003 -
Gimar Traders v. State of Maharashtra. Speaking for the F
majority, P.P. Naolekar, J., referred to the relevant provisions
of the 1966 Act including Sections 126 and 127, and observed:
"31. Section 127 prescribes two time periods. First, a
period of 10 years within which the acquisition of the land G
reserved, allotted or designated has to be completed by
agreement from the date on which a regional plan or
development plan comes into force, or the proceedings for
acquisition of such land under the MRTP Act or under the
LA Act are commenced. Secondly, if the first part of H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A Section 127 is not complied with or no steps are taken,
then the second part of Section 127 will come into
operation, under which a period of six months is provided
from the date on which the notice has been served by the
owner within which the land has to be acquired or the steps
B as aforesaid are to be commenced for its acquisition. The
six-month period shall commence from the date the owner
or any person interested in the land serves a notice on the
planning authority, development authority or appropriate
authority expressing his intent claiming dereservation of
c the land. If neither of the things is done, the reservation
shall lapse. If there is no notice by the owner or any person
interested, there is no question of lapsing reservation,
allotment or designation of the land under the development
plan. Second part of Section 127 stipulates that the
reservation of the land under a development scheme shall
D
lapse if the land is not acquired or no steps are taken for
acquisition of the land within the period of six months from
the date of service of the purchase notice. The word
"aforesaid" in the collocation of the words "no steps as
aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition" obviously
E refers to the steps contemplated by Section 126 of the
MRTP Act.
If no proceedings as provided under Section 127 are
taken and as a result thereof the reservation of the land
F lapses. the land shall be released from reservation.
allotment or designation and shall be available to the
owner for the purpose of development. The availability of
the land to the owner for the development would only be
for the purpose which is permissible in the case of adjacent
G land under the relevant plan. Thus, even after the release,
the owner cannot utilise the land in whatever manner he
deems fit and proper, but its utilisation has to be in
conformity with the relevant plan for which the adjacent
lands are permitted to be utilised."
H (emphasis supplied)
-
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 693
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Naolekar, J. then referred to the judgment in Dr. Hakimwadi A
Tenants' Association (supra) and proceeded to observed:
"52 .............. Thus, after perusing the judgment in
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay case we have found
that the question for consideration before the Court in B
Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay case has reference
to first step required to be taken by the owner after lapse
of 10 years' period without any step taken by the authority
for acquisition of land, whereby the owners of the land
served the notice for dereservation of the land. The Court
was not called upon to decide the case on the substantial C
step, namely, the step taken by the authority within six
months of service of notice by the owners for dereservation
of their land which is second step required to be taken by
the authority after service of notice.
D
53. The observations of this Court regarding the linking of
word "aforesaid" from the wordings "no steps as aforesaid
are commenced for its acquisition" of Section 127 with the
steps taken by the competent authority for acquisition of
land as provided under Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act, E
had no direct or substantial nexus either with the factual
matrix or any of the legal issues raised before it. It is
apparent that no legal issues, either with respect to
interpretation of words "no steps as aforesaid are
commenced for its acquisition" as stipulated under the F
provisions of Section 127 or any link of these words with
steps to be taken on service of notice, were contended
before the Court. Thus, observations of the Court did not
relate to any of the legal questions arising in the case and,
. accordingly, cannot be considered as the part of ratio G
decidendi. Hence, in light of the aforementioned judicial
pronouncements, which have well settled the proposition
that only the ratio decidendi can act as the binding or
authoritative precedent, it is clear that the reliance placed
on mere general observations or casual expressions of the
Court, is not of much avail to the respondents. H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 2 S.C.R.
A 54. When we conjointly read Sections 126 and 127 of the
MRTP Act. it is apparent that the legislative intent is to
expeditiously acquire the land reserved under the Town
Planning Scheme and. therefore. various periods have
been prescribed for acquisition of the owner's property.
B The intent and purpose of the provisions of Sections 126
and 127 has been well explained in Municipal Coron. of
Greater Bombay case. If the acquisition is left for time
immemorial in the hands of the authority concerned by
simply making an application to the State Government for
c acquiring such land under the LA Act. 1894. then the
authority will simply move such an application and if no
such notification is issued by the State Government for one
year of the publication of the draft regional plan under
Section 126(2) read with Section 6 of the LA Act. wait for
the notification to be issued by the State Government by
D
exercising suo motu power under sub-section (4) of
Section 126: and till then no declaration could be made
under Section 127 as regards lapsing of reservation and
contemplated declaration of land being released and
available for the landowner for his utilisation as permitted
E under Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the
part of the acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years
for dereservation of the land. Not only that. it gives a further
time for either to acquire the land or to take steps for
acquisition of the land within a period of six months from
F the date of service· of notice by the landowner for
dereservation. The steps towards commencement of the
acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be the
steps for acquisition and not a step which may not result
into acauisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time
G so that Section 127 does not come into operation.
56. The underlying principle envisaged in Section 127 of
the MRTP Act is either to utilise the land for the purpose it
is reserved in the plan in a given time or let the owner
utilise the land for the purpose it is permissible under the
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 695
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
town planning scheme. The step taken under the section A
within the time stipulated should be towards acquisition of
land. It is a step of acquisition of land and not step for
acquisition of land. It is trite that failure of authorities to take
steps which result in actual commencement of acquisition
of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and B
object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act
by merely moving an application requesting the
Government to acquire the land. which Government may
or may not accept. Any step which may or may not
culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said to be c
a step towards acquisition.
57. It may also be noted that the legislature while enacting
Section 127 has deliberately used the word "steps" (in
plural and not in singular) which are required to be taken
for acquisition of the land. On construction of Section 126 D
which provides for acquisition of the land under the MRTP
Act. it is apparent that the steps for acquisition of the land
would be issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of
the LA Act. Clause (c) of Section 126(1) merely provides
for a mode by which the State Government can be E
requested for the acquisition of the land under Section 6
of the LA Act. The making of an application to the State
Government for acquisition of the land would not be a step
for acquisition of the land under reservation. Sub-section
(2) of Section 126 leaves it open to the State Government F
either to permit the acquisition or not to permit.
considering the public puroose for which the acquisition
is sought for by the authorities. Thus. the steps towards
acquisition would really commence when the State
Government permits the acquisition and as a result thereof G
publishes the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act.
58. The MRTP Act does not contain any reference to
Section 4 or Section 5-A of the LA Act. The MRTP Act
contains the provisions relating to preparation of regional
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A plan, the development plan, plans for comprehensive
developments, town planning schemes and in such plans
and in the schemes, the land is reserved for public purpose.
The reservation of land for a particular purpose under the
MRTP Act is done through a complex exercise which
B begins with land use map, survey, population studies and
several other complex factors. This process replaces the
provisions of Section 4 of the LA Act and the inquiry
contemplated under Section 5-A of the LA Act. These
provisions are purposely excluded for the purposes of
c acquisition under the MRTP Act. The acquisition
commences with the publication of declaration under
Section 6 of the LA Act. The publication of the declaration
under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 126 read with
Section 6 of the LA Act is a sine qua non for the
commencement of any proceedings for acquisition under
D
the MRTP Act. It is Section 6 declaration which would
commence the acquisition proceedings under the MRTP
Act and would culminate into passing of an award as
provided in sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the MRTP
Act. Thus, unless and until Section 6 declaration is issued,
E it cannot be said that the steps for acquisition are
commenced.
59. There is another aspect of the matter. If we read
Section 126 of the MRTP Act and the words used therein
F are given the verbatim meaning, then the steps
commenced for acquisition of the land would not include
making of an application under Section 126(1 )(c) or the
declaration which is to be made by the State Government
under sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
G
60. On a conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4)
of Section 126, we notice that Section 126 provides for
different steps which are to be taken by the authorities for
acquisition of the land in different eventualities and within
a particular time span. Steps taken for acquisition of the
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 697
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
land by the authorities under Clause (c) of Section 126(1) A
have to be culminated into Section 6 declaration under the
LA Act for acquisition of the land in the Official Gazette,
within a period of one year under the proviso to sub-section
(2) of Section 126. If no such declaration is made within
the time prescribed, no declaration under Section 6 of the B
LA Act could be issued under the proviso to sub-section
(2) and no further steps for acquisition of the land could
be taken in pursuance of the application moved to the State
Government by the planning authority or other authority.
61. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 prohibits C
publication of the declaration after the expiry of one year
from the date of publication of draft regional plan,
development plan or any other plan or scheme. Thus, from
the date of publication of the draft regional plan, within one
year an application has to be moved under Clause (c) of D
Section 126(1) which should culminate into a declaration
under Section 6 of the LA Act. As per the proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 126, the maximum period permitted
between the publication of a draft regional plan and
declaration by the Government in the Official Gazette under E
Section 126(2) is one year. In otherwords, during one year
of the publication of the draft regional plan, two steps need
to be completed, namely, (1) application by the appropriate
authority to the State Government under Section 126(1 )(c);
and (it) declaration by the State Government on receipt of F
the application mentioned in Clause (c) of Section 126(1)
on satisfaction of the conditions specified under Section
126(2). The only exception to this provision has been given
under Section 126(4)."
G
(emphasis supplied)
20. In our view, there is no conflict between the judgments
of the two-Judge Bench in Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association
(supra) and the majority judgment in Gimar Traders (II). In both
the cases, this Court emphasized that if any private land is H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A shown as reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
specified in any Development plan, the same may be acquired
within ten years either by agreement or by following the
procedure prescribed under the 1894 Act, and if proceedings
for the acquisition of land are not commenced within that period
B and a further period of six months from the date of service of
notice under Section 127 of the 1966 Act, then the land shall
be deemed to have been released from such reservation,
allotment, etc. In Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association (supra),
notice under Section 127 was issued on 1.7.1977. The State
c Government did not take any steps for the acquisition of land
within next six months. The learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court held that in terms of second
part of Section 127, the reservation of land for recreation
ground will be deemed to have lapsed. This Court unequivocally
approved the view expressed by the High Court (paragraphs
0
10 and 11 ). The majority judgment in Gimar Traders (II) appears
to suggest that the question considered and decided in Dr.
Hakimwadi Tenants' Association (supra) was slightly different,
but having carefully gone through paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
E first judgment, we are convinced that the question involving
interpretation of Section 127 was very much considered and
decided by the two-Judge Bench in favour of the landowner and
there is no conflict in the opinion expressed in the two
judgments.
F 21. We are further of the view that the majority in Gimar
Traders (II) had rightly observed that steps towards the
acquisition would really commence when the State Government
takes active steps for the acquisition of the particular piece of
land which leads to publication of the declaration under Section
G 6 of the 1894 Act. Any other interpretation of the scheme of
Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act will make the provisions
wholly unworkable and leave the landowner at the mercy of the
Planning Authority and the State Government.
22. The expression "no steps as aforesaid" used in
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 699
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Section 127 of the 1966 Act has to be read in the context of A
the provisions of the 1894 Act and mere passing of a resolution
by the Planning Authority or sending of a letter to the Collector
or even the State Government cannot be treated as
commencement of the proceedings for the acquisition of land
under the 1966 Act or the 1894 Act. By enacting Sections 125 B
to 127 of the 1966 Act, the State Legislature has made a
definite departure from the scheme of acquisition enshrined in
the 1894 Act. But a holistic reading of these provisions makes
it clear that while engrafting the substance of some of the
provisions of the 1894 Act in the 1966 Act and leaving out other c
provisions, the State Legislature has ensured that the
landowners/other interested persons, whose land is utilized for
execution of the Development plan/Town Planning Scheme,
etc., are not left high and dry. This is the reason why time limit
of ten years has been prescribed ln Section 31 (5) and also 0
under Sections 126 and 127 of the 1966 Act for the acquisition
of land, with a stipulation that if the land is not acquired within
six months of the service of notice under Section 127 or steps
are not commenced for acquisition, reservation of the land will
be deemed to have lapsed. Shri Naphade's interpretation of E
the scheme of Sections 126 and 127, if accepted, will lead to
absurd results and the landowners will be deprived of their right
to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid
compensation. That would tantamount to depriving the citizens
of their property without the sanction of law and would result in
violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. F
23. Before concluding, we may notice the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Gimar Traders (Ill) on which reliance was
placed by Shri Shekhar Naphade. The main question decided
in that case was whether Section 11 A of the 1894 Act is G
applicable to the acquisition of land made under the 1966 Act.
The Constitution Bench referred to the provisions of the 1966
Act (as amended) including Chapter VII thereof and held that
Section 11A of the 1894 Act cannot be bodily lifted and read
into the scheme of the 1966 Act. At the same time, it held that H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A if any land is reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose
specified in the Regional plan or Development plan and the
same is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the
date of enforcement of such plan or the declaration under sub-
section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the 1966 Act is not
B published in the Official Gazette within that period, the owner
or any person interested in the land may serve notice upon the
Planning Authority etc. and if within 12 months of the service
of notice the land is not acquired or no steps, as aforesaid are
commenced for its acquisition, the reservation etc. will
c automatically lapse. All this is evinced from paragraphs 125-
129, 132-134, 136 and 138 of the Constitution Bench judgment,
which are extracted below:
"125. In terms of Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act, the
application to the State Government has to be made for
D acquiring such land under the Land Acquisition Act. Such
land refers to the lands which are required only under the
provisions of the MRTP Act. Section 126(2) refers to
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act only for the purpose
of format in which the declaration has to be made. In terms
E of Section 126(3), on publication of the declaration, the
Collector shall proceed to take order for acquisition of the
land under the State Act i.e. for the purpose of acquisition
of land; the procedure adopted under the Land Acquisition
Act shall be adopted by the Collector and nothing more.
F The aforereferred provisions of the State Act clearly frame
a scheme for planned development with limited
incorporation of some of the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act.
126. The provisions of the State Act were amended last
G
in point of time and, therefore, the State Legislature was
aware of the relevant existing laws including Section 11-
A of the Land Acquisition Act. The intent of the legislature
to exclude the application of Section 11-A clearly emerges
from the fact that while amending Section 127 of the MRTP
H
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 701
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Act, it made no reference, generally or specifically, to the A
said provision rather it deleted reference to the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act from the unamended
provisions of Section· 127. Reference to Section 16 of the
Land Acquisition Act in the State Act, under Section 128(3)
of the State Act, is again relatable to the acquisition B
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, as under
Section 83 of the State Act, the land could vest in the
Planning Authority even at the threshold and it is vesting
of a different kind than contemplated under Section 16 of
the Land Acquisition Act. The purpose and intent of c
Section 129 of the MRTP Act is akin to the provisions of
Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and from linguistic
point of view, there is similarity in the two sections but still
the State Act has provided for a complete scheme with
regard to possession and compensation payable to the
0
owner of the land in cases of urgency. Thus, it is clear that
there is no general reference to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act and they shall not apply as such or even
mutatis mutandis to the MRTP Act. On the contrary,
reference to the Central Act, wherever is made in the State
E
Act, is specific and for a definite purpose.
127. Another argument which had been vehemently
advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the reference
to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in different
provisions of the MRTP Act would require that the F
proceedings commence from Section 6 of the Central Act
onwards and award is made in terms of Section 11 of that
Act and as those provisions apply to these proceedings,
Section 11-A would automatically come into play so would
the other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The G
expression "under the said Act" in Section 126(3) of the
MRTP Act is sufficient indication that it is a legislation by
reference and, thus, all subsequent amendments would
apply. It was also contended that on a bare reading of
Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act, it is clear that it H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R.
A does not exclude the application of Section 11-A of the
Land Acquisition Act.
128. We certainly are not impressed by this argument
advanced on behalf ofthe appellants. Firstly, if we examine
B the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act, they commence only when a notification under Sectibn
4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued. Section 5-A of the
Central Act makes it incumbent upon the authorities to
invite objections and decide the same before issuing
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
c All these proceedings have specifically been given a go-
by under the MRTP Act, where notification is to be issued
under Section 126(2) in the manner provided under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Secondly, specific
reference to various sections of the Land Acquisition Act
D in the MRTP Act necessarily implies exclusion of the
provisions not specifically mentioned therein. Lastly,
acquisition proceedings under the MRTP Act are
commenced by issuance of a declaration under Section
126(2) and then the procedure prescribed under the Land
E Acquisition Act is followed up to the passing of award
under Section 11 of that Act.
129. Further, determination of compensation will again
depend upon the principles stated in Sections 23 and 24
F of the Land Acquisition Act but subject to Sections 128(2)
and 129(1) of the MRTP Act. Statutory benefits accrued
under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act would be applicable as held by this Court
in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. Vesting, unlike
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act which operates only
G
after the award is made and compensation is given,
whereas under the MRTP Act it may operate even at the
initial stages before making of an award, for example,
under Sections 126(1)(c) and 83.
H 132. Besides this, another very important aspect of the
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 703
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
present case is that if the provisions of Section 11-A of A
the Land Acquisition Act are applied or deemed to be
incorporated by application of any doctrine of law into the
provisions of the MRTP Act, it will have the effect of
destroying the statutory rights available to the State
Government and/or the Planning Authority. For instance, B
proviso to Section 126(2) of the State Act provides that
where a declaration in the manner provided in Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the said land is
not made within one year from the date of publication of
draft regional plan, thereafter no such declaration shall be c
made. Section 126(4) makes an exception to the
consequences stated in the proviso to Section 126(2) that
the State Government, notwithstanding those provisions,
can make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land under
the Land Acquisition Act. However, the market value of the 0
land shall be the market value at the date of declaration in
the Official Gazette made for acquiring such land afresh.
In other words, the rest of the machinery provided under
the Act would not operate after the prescribed period.
133. However. in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. E
if any land reserved. allotted or designated for any purpose
specified is not acquired by agreement within 10 years
from the date on which final regionaf plan or final
development plan comes into force or if a declaration
under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP F
Act is not published in the Official Gazette within such
period. the owner or any person interested in the land may
serve notice upon such authority to that effect and if within
12 months from the date of service of such notice. the land
is not acquired or no steps. as aforesaid. are commenced G
for its acquisition. the reservation. allotment or designation
shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land would
become available to the owner for the purposes of
development. The defaults. their consequences and even
exceptions thereto have been specifically stated in the H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 2 S.C.R.
A State Act. For a period of 11 years, the land would remain
under reservation or designation, as the case may be, in
terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act (10 years + notice
period).
134. However, if the provisions of Section 11-A of the
B
Central Act were permitted to punctuate a scheme of the
State Act and the award is not made within two years from
the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Central Act,
the acquisition proceedings will lapse which will frustrate
the rights of the State as well as the scheme contemplated
c under Section 126 as well as Section 127 of the State Act
and that would not be permissible in law. This being
legislation by incorporation, the general reference to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall stand
excluded.
D
136. Section 126(2) of the State Act refers to the manner
of declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act but the legislature intentionally
avoided making any reference to other features contained
E in Section 6 of the Central Act as well as the time-frame
prescribed under that Act. On the contrary, proviso to
Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act spells out its own time-
frame whereafter such declaration cannot be made subject
to the provisions of Section 126(4). The unamended
F provisions of Section 127 of the State Act though refer to
the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act but without
making any reference to the time-frame prescribed under
the said Act. In this section also, the specific time-frame
and the consequences of default thereof have been stated.
Sections 128 and 129 of the MRTP Act relate to acquiring
G
land for the purpose other than for which it is designated
in any plan or scheme and taking of possession of land in
cases of urgency respectively.
138. The provisions relating to planned development of the
H State or any part ther~of, read in conjunction with the object
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SHRIRAMPUR v. 705
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the Act, show that different time-frames are required for A
initiation, finalisation and complete execution of such
development plans. The period of 10 years stated in
Section 127 of the MRTP Act, therefore, cannot be said
to be arbitrary or unreasonable ex facie. If the provisions
of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, with its B
serious consequence of lapsing of entire acquisition
proceedings, are bodily lifted and read into the provisions
of the MRTP Act, it is bound to frustrate the entire scheme
and render it ineffective and uncertain. Keeping in view the
consequence of Section 11-A of the Central Act, every c
development plan could stand frustrated only for the reason
that period of two years has lapsed and it will tantamount
to putting an end to the entire development process."
(emphasis supplied)
D
24. In our view, the observations contained in paragraph
133 of Gimar Traders (Ill) unequivocally support the majority
judgment in Gimar Traders (II).
25. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the E
majority judgment in Gimar Traders (II) lays down correct law
and does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench. We
further hold that the orders impugned in these appeals are
legally correct and do not call for interference by this Court. The
appeals are accordingly dismissed.
F
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land reservation"Sign in to search