SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ramadhar Sadhu Yadav (Since … vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal … on 7 August, 2019

hcs
wp9630.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9630 OF 2017

Shri Sahebrao Bhausaheb Kalate
Occupation : Agriculture
R/o Wakad, Tal.Mulshi
District Pune … Petitioner.
V/s.
1.The State of Maharashtra …

2.The Collector, Pune …

3.Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Special Unit No.2, Pimpri,
Sant Tukaram Nagar,
Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation, Pimpri, Pune. …

4.The Dy. Commissioner
Planning and Development Department
Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation, Pimpri, Pune. …

5.The Commissioner,
Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation, Pimpri, Pune. … Respondents.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2373 OF 2015 C.A.NO.307 OF 2017

M/s. Devi Construction Company
Through its Partner
Mr.Vinod K. Baney, Devi House.
4th Floor, 37, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune – 411 005 … Petitioner.
V/s.
1.The State of Maharashtra
Through The Principal Secretary
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai …

2.The Deputy Director of Town
Planning, Pimpri-Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation.
Pimpri, Pune 411 018 …

3.The Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation through its Municipal

1/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

Commissioner, Pimpri,
Pune – 411 018. …

4.The Assistant Commissioner
(Octroi) Pimpri-Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation,
Pimpri, Pune. …

5.The Collector
Pune District, Pune. …

6.The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Special Group No.1
Mahanagar Palika Market,
2nd Floor Sant Tukaram Nagar,
Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation, Pimpri, Pune. …

7.The Divisional Commissioner
Pune Division, Council Hall,
Pune 411 011. …

8.Union of India
Through Secretary to
Department of Land Resources
Ministry of Rural Development
New Delhi … Respondents.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1163 OF 2018 C.A. NO.324 OF 2019

Ramadhar Sadhu Yadav
Age 75 years, Occ.Business
R/at Yaduvanshi Nivas,
Survey No.82/2, CTS No.5405,
Adarsh Nagar, Kalewadi Road,
Kalewadi, Pune 411 027 … Petitioner.
V/s.
1.The Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation through its Municipal
Commissioner, Pimpri,
Pune – 411 018. …

2.The Deputy Director, Town
Planning, Pimpri-Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation.
Pimpri, Pune 411 018 …

3.The Deputy Director of

2/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

Town Planning, Pune Divisional
Pune …

4.Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town
Development Authority,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Having its office at Sector No.24,
Nigdi, Pune – 411 018. …

5.The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Special Unit No.1
Pimpri, Pune. …

6.The Collector, Pune
Having its office at Collector’s
Office Bldg, Pune. …

7.The Principal Secretary,
Urban Land Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 …

8.The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 …

9.Union of India
Department of Land Resources
Ministry of Rural Development
New Delhi … Respondents.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 2018

Subhash Ramadhar Yadav
Age 48 years, Occ.Business
R/at – Yaduvanshi Nivas,
Survey No.82/2, CTS No.5405,
Adarsh Nagar, Kalewadi Road,
Rahatni, Pune 411 027 … Petitioner.
V/s.
1.The Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation through its Municipal
Commissioner, Pimpri,
Pune – 411 018. …

2.The Deputy Director, Town
Planning and Development Dept.

3/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

Pimpri-Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation.
Pimpri, Pune 411 018 …

3.The Deputy Director of
Town Planning, Pune Divisional
Pune …

4.Pimpri-Chinchwad New Town
Development Authority,
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Having its office at Sector No.24,
Nigdi, Pune – 411 018. …

5.The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Special Unit No.1
Pimpri, Pune. …

6.The Collector, Pune
Having its office at Collector’s
Office Bldg,
Pune …

7.The Principal Secretary,
Urban Land Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 …

8.The State of Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary,
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 …

9.Union of India
Department of Land Resources
Ministry of Rural Development
New Delhi … Respondents.

Mr.R.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sandeep S. Salunkhe for the
petitioner in WP 9630/2017.
Mr.P.P.More AGP for State.
Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.M.S.Lagu for Respondent No.9 in WP
1163/2018.
Mr.Girish Godbole a/w Mr.R.S.Kohli a/w Vikram Chavan a/w Preeti
Limchiya a/w Ms.Dhvani Jain a/w Jatin Sahai a/w Khalid Kazi a/w
K.Ayesha i/b M/s C.K.Legal for Petitioner in WP 2373/2015.
Mr.G.H.Keluskar for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in WP 2373/2015.
Mr.N.R.Bubna for Respondent No.3 in WP 2373/2015.
Mr.Sandeep V.Marne for Respondent Nos.4 5.

4/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 29TH MARCH, 2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 07TH AUGUST, 2019

JUDGMENT ( PER R.M. BORDE, J.)

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent
of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing at
the admission stage.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.9630 of 2017,
whose landed property ad-measuring 27R out of Gat No.1
situated at Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune is subjected to
acquisition proceedings, is praying for issuance of writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ
or direction for quashing and setting aside the Award dated
2nd June, 2017 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Special Unit No.2, Pimpri, Pune. Though the petitioner has
prayed for issuance of declaration that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of suit land have lapsed in view of
failure to comply with the provisions of Sectionsection 11(A) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”) i.e. failure
to pass an Award within a period of two years from the date of
declaration under Sectionsection 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
however, said relief has not been pressed in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of SectionGirnar
Traders vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 3
SCC Page 1. The land belonging to the petitioner, which is
subjected to acquisition proceedings is situated at Wakad

5/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

within jurisdictional area of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation. The petitioner claims to be owner of the land and
is also stated to be in possession of the property. The
petitioner submits that the said land is reserved under
Reservation Site No.4/3 for the purpose of extension of the
primary school in the final development plan prepared for
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation under the provisions
of MRTP Act. During the first round of acquisition proceedings,
the petitioner states that, on 15th April, 2010, taking recourse
to the provisions of Sectionsection 17 of the Act of 1894 and by
application of urgency clause, the possession of the land was
taken over illegally by the acquisition authorities. The
petitioner objected to the action of taking over illegal
possession by the acquisition authorities and presented Writ
Petition No.8313 of 2010 in this Court. The petition came to be
decided finally on 5th December, 2011. The Division Bench of
this Court while directing quashment of the action of taking
over possession by application of urgency clause under
Sectionsection 17 of the Act of 1894, directed the respondents to
return back possession of the land to the petitioner. The
possession of land under acquisition came to be handed over
back to the petitioner on 30th December, 2011.

4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an
Award under Sectionsection 11 of the Act of 1894, determining the
amount of compensation at Rs.4,74,56,086/-. The amount of
compensation has been determined under the provisions of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

6/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

(hereinafter referred to as “RFCTLAR R Act”). According to
the petitioner while computing the amount of compensation
the acquisition authorities have taken into consideration the
date 22.04.2010 i.e. date of issuance of notification under
Sectionsection 6 of the Act of 1894 as the reference date for
determination of the amount of compensation. In the instant
proceedings, the date of issuance of notification under section
126(4) of MRTP Act read with Sectionsection 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act is 22.04.2010.

5. According to the petitioner, the acquisition
authorities have not considered the office memorandum dated
17th June, 2015 issued by Union of India. In view of
memorandum referred above, the reference date for
calculation of the amount of compensation shall be 1st
January, 2014 i.e. date of enforcement of the provisions of the
Act of 2013. According to the petitioner, in view of Rule 19(3)
of the Rules framed under the Act of 2013, in case of
acquisition of the land under MRTP Act for the public purpose,
the determination of compensation shall be governed by the
provisions of Act of 2013 and since the Award has not been
made before 31st December, 2013 the provisions of Sectionsections
26 to Section30 of the Act of 2013 would be applicable for
computing the amount of compensation. Reliance is placed
on various judgments of this Court, Apex Court and other High
Courts to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner.

6. Shri G.S. Godbole, learned counsel with leave of this
Court, has put forth his submissions. While supporting the

7/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

claim raised by the petitioner, he contends that the reference
date for determination of the amount of compensation, in the
event of passing of an Award after enforcement of the Act of
2013 and in respect of proceedings of acquisition initiated
prior to reference date shall be 1st January, 2014.

7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
State opposed the contentions mainly relying upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Girnar Traders (supra) as well
as judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
the matter of SectionChandrakant Mahadev Patil Others vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.4790 of 2018
decided on 6th August, 2018. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the Full Bench in the matter of SectionMehtab Laiq
Ahmed Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
reported in 2017(6) Mh.L.J. 408. The issue referred to the Full
Bench was as regards applicability of the provisions of Sectionsection
24(2) of the Act of 2013, which is a lapsing provision, in
respect of the proceedings of acquisition initiated in terms of
section 125 to 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966. The Full Bench of this Court adopted analogy
recorded in the Girnar Traders (supra) and has answered the
issue, holding that the lapsing provision contained in Sectionsection
24(2) of the Act of 2013 has no application to the proceedings
of acquisition initiated in terms of section 125 to 127 of the
MRTP Act.

8. So far as the contentions raised by the petitioner
that the proceedings of acquisition shall be deemed to have

8/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

been lapsed in view of non-compliance of Sectionsection 11(A) of the
Act of 1894 is concerned, the issue has been answered by the
Supreme Court in SectionGirnar Traders vs. State of Maharashtra
(cited supra). So far as applicability of the lapsing provisions
contained in Sectionsection 24(2) is concerned, the issue is covered
by the Full Bench judgment in the matter of Mehtab Laiq
Ahmed Shaikh (supra). Thus, the prayer made by the
petitioner in the instant petition seeking declaration that the
proceedings of acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed in
view of Sectionsection 11(A) of the Act of 1894 or in view of
provisions of Sectionsection 24(2) of the Act of 2013, need not be
considered. The only contention that has been pressed into
service by the petitioner is as regards applicability of the
reference date of 1st January, 2014 for the purpose of
determination of amount of compensation of the acquired
land. The State of Maharashtra sought guidance from the
Central Government on the issue as to what should be
reference date for determination of the amount of
compensation under the Act of 2013 in the matter where
acquisition proceedings are initiated prior to enforcement of
the Act of 2013 and the Award came to be declared after
enforcement of the Act of 2013 and the amount of
compensation, in view of the provisions of Sectionsection 24(1)(a), is
required to be determined in accordance with provisions
contained in the Act of 2013. The issue raised by the
Government of Maharashtra is answered by Central
Government informing that “for calculation of market value
under Sectionsection 24(1)(a), reference date should be 01.01.2014
(commencement of Act of 2013) since the date of issuance

9/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

of preliminary notification under the SectionLand Acquisition Act, 1894
falls prior to enforcement of Act of 2013. The Central
Government has issued explanation as quoted below :

“The reference date for calculation of market value,
under section 24(1)(a) should be 01.01.2014
(commencement of RFCTLAR R Act, 2013) as the
section reads “in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the SectionLand Acquisition Act,
1894, where no Award under Sectionsection 11 of the said
SectionLand Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply.”

“Under Sectionsection 26 reference date is the date of
preliminary notification, but Sectionsection 24 is a special case of
application of the Act in retrospective cases, and a later date
of determination of market value is suggested (i.e.
01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land
owners/Farmers/affected Families get enhanced compensation
under the provisions of RFCTLAR R Act of 2013 (as also
recommended by the standing committee in its 31 st Report)”.

9. The issue relating to enforceability of clarification
expressed by the State Government (pursuant to issuance of
memorandum by Union of India) under the memorandum was
the matter of consideration before the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court in the matter of Ishant International
Educational Society through Director vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and 3 others, decided on 9th May, 2013 and the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the
communication dated 26th October, 2015 of the Government

10/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

of India, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural
Development to the Maharashtra Government cannot be
treated as directions issued under Sectionsection 113 of the 2013
Act since those have not been laid before each house of the
Parliament.

10. Section 113 provides that if any difficulty arises in
giving effect to the provisions of Part-II, the Central
Government, may, by order make such provision or give such
directions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act as
may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the
removal of the difficulty. It is held by the Allahabad High Court
that Sub-section (2) of Sectionsection 113 provides that every order
made under said section shall be laid, as soon as may be after
it is made, before each House of Parliament. It does not,
however, provide that directions issued also shall be laid
before each House of Parliament. It is observed that the
Central Government had not issued any order and had only
issued directions after taking the opinion from the Department
of Legal Affairs. Such directions, therefore, are not required to
be laid before the two Houses of Parliament. It is not a case of
the petitioners that the directions issued by the Department of
Legal Affairs are also not consistent with the provisions of the
2013 Act. Thus, the directions do not remove the difficulty in
giving effect to the provisions of 2013 Act. The Central
Government has not issued any order but has issued only
directions after taking the opinion from the Department of
Legal Affairs and such directions are not required to be laid
before the two Houses of Parliament. Thus, there can be no

11/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

controversy as regards the fact that the directions can be
issued by the Central Government and need not be placed
before the House of Legislature. The Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court proceeded to issue directions to the
Special Land Acquisition Officer in the aforesaid matter to
determine the amount of compensation payable to the
petitioner therein under the provisions of the 2013 Act by
treating 1st January, 2014 as the date on which the market
value of the land should be determined. The judgment of the
Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was challenged at the
instance of Ghaziabad Development Authority in Special Leave
to Appeal (C) No(S).17660 of 2017 ( SectionGhaziabad Development
Authority vs. Ishan International Educational Society Ors.) .
The Hon’ble Apex Court did not find any valid reason to
cause interference and as such proceeded to dismiss the SLP.

11. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of
the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter
of SectionNagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. vs. Vithalrao
Others reported in AIR 1973 SC 689 and contends that it is
open for the State to make reasonable classification for the
purpose of legislation. But the object itself shall be lawful. The
object itself cannot be discriminatory, or otherwise, for
instance, if the object is to discriminate against one section of
the society the discrimination cannot be justified on the
ground that there is a reasonable classification because it has
no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Different principles for determination of the amount of
compensation cannot be applied merely because the land is

12/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

acquired by different entities; because as far as the owner is
concerned, it does not matter to him whether the land is
acquired by the one authority or the other. It is the contention
of the petitioner that failure to prescribe 1.1.2014 as the
reference date for computation of the amount of compensation
in cases of acquisition of land for development purpose as
regards sites reserved under final development plan prepared
under the MRTP Act is discriminatory and violation of principle
of equality. There cannot be discrimination in the matter of
computation of compensation based on reference date by
taking recourse to the provisions of the SectionLand Acquisition Act,
1894, Act of 2013 or the MRTP Act. Though, the land under
acquisition is utilised for the purpose of development of site
prescribed under the final development plan for the Municipal
Corporation, so far as the owner of the land is concerned, the
object of acquisition does not matter and that he is entitled to
contend that there shall be no discrimination in computation of
the amount of compensation, merely, on the ground that the
object of acquisition of the property is different.

12. In the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra) the
lands were acquired by Nagpur Improvement trust in view of
sanction accorded by the Government for its scheme under
Sectionsection 45 of the Improvement Act. The petitioner/claimant
tendered the writ petition challenging validity of the
SectionImprovement Act on various grounds and one of the ground
was that the SectionImprovement Act was violative of SectionArticle 14 of
the Constitution inasmuch as it empowered the acquisition of
the lands at prices lower than those which would have been

13/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

payable if they had been acquired under the SectionLand Acquisition
Act, 1894. It was noticed that since the basis of determination
of payment of compensation is violative of the guarantee
under SectionArticle 14 of the Constitution it was not permissible for
the State to violate guarantee of equality and proceed to
acquire the property under the provisions of SectionLand Acquisition
Act as amended by the Improvement Trust Act. It was held by
the High Court that the provisions of paragraph 10(2) and
10(3) insofar as they add a new clause (3)(a) to Sectionsection 23
and a proviso to sub-section(2) of Sectionsection 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act are ultra vires, violating the guarantee of
SectionArticle 14 of the Constitution. In view of the modifications
brought about in the SectionImprovement Act, the owner, whose
land is acquired under the SectionImprovement Act is paid
compensation not according to the market value of the land
but the market value according to the use to which the land
was put at the date with reference to which the market value
is to be determined. In other words, if the land is being used
for agricultural purposes, even though it has a potential value
as a building site, the potential value is to be ignored. The
second aspect which puts the land owner to disadvantage is
that the claimant does not get a solatium at 15% under the
amended provision, in the absence of which he would have
got all benefits accruable under SectionLand Acquisition Act. The
question that arose was as to whether the State can make any
discrimination in the matter of determination of the amount
of compensation on the count that acquisition of property is
under the SectionImprovement Act and whether it would be
permissible to deny benefits accruable had the property

14/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

been acquired under the SectionLand Acquisition Act. The Supreme
Court has observed that the State can make a reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation. It is equally well
settled that the classification in order to be reasonable must
satisfy two tests: (i) the classification must be founded on
intelligible differentia and (ii) the differentia must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
legislation in question. The object itself must be rational
and cannot be discriminatory. It is further held that different
principles of compensation cannot be formulated for lands
acquired on the basis, such as, owner is old or young, healthy
or ill, tall or short or whether owner has inherited the
property or built it with his own efforts, or whether the owner
is politician or an advocate. The object being to compulsorily
acquire the land for a public purpose, the object is equally
achieved whether the land belongs to one type or another
type. The classification made on the basis of the public
purpose, for the purpose of payment of compensation for
which the land is acquired, is also discriminatory and as such
impermissible. It is observed that ordinarily a classification
based on the public purpose is not permissible under SectionArticle 14
of the Constitution for purpose of determining compensation.
Whether the land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust or
Municipal Corporation or the Government or that the
classification made on the basis of authority acquiring land,
would be impermissible for the reason that so far as the
owner is concerned, it does not matter to him whether the
land is acquired by one authority or other.

15/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::

wp9630.17.odt

13. According to the petitioners, since the reference
date prescribed by the Central Government while answering
the query raised by the State of Maharashtra has direct nexus
in determination of the amount of compensation, the
claimants/landowners, whose lands are acquired by the
authorities, the lands being prescribed under reservation in
the final development plan prepared under the MRTP Act,
there can be no classification in respect of acquisition
initiated under the MRTP Act or SectionLand Acquisition Act in the
matter Awarding monetary benefits.

14. Learned counsel Shri Godbole invited our attention
to the Rule 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014 and contends that
the Rule postulates that in cases where the declaration under
Sectionsection 4 of the old Act of 1894 has been made before
31.12.2013 and the Award under Sectionsection 11 of the 1894 Act
has not been declared before 31.12.2013 then in such cases
provision of Sectionsections 26 to Section30 shall be made applicable for
determination of the amount of compensation. Sub-Rule 2 of
Rule 19 relates to the acquisition under section 32 of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 whereas Sub-
Rule 3 of Rule 19 refers to acquisition of land for the public
purpose under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. It
is further contended that in view of Sectionsection 26 of the Act of
2013, and more particularly, the proviso contained therein, it is
imperative that the date of determination of market value
shall be the date on which a notification has been issued

16/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

under section 11 of the RFCTLAR R Act, 2013 (New Act).
There were certain difficulties for the State Government in
completing acquisition proceedings in cases where notification
under Sectionsection 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued or declaration
under Sectionsection 6 of the 1894 Act for the lands reserved under
MRTP Act was published or that notification under Chapter VI
of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act was issued
before 31.12.2013 and the Award under Sectionsection 11 of the
1894 Act has not been passed before the said date. In the
light of the provisions of section 26 of the RFCTLAR R Act, in
order to invoke the provisions of Sectionsection 26, the Government of
Maharashtra would have been required to issue fresh
notification under Sectionsection 11 of the new Act which would have
resulted in delay in acquisition proceedings and as such the
State of Maharashtra sought clarification from the Union of
India as regards the reference date for calculation of the
market value in relation to such acquisition proceedings. With
reference to Sectionsection 24 (1)(a) of the RFCTLAR R Act, the
Government of India in exercise of powers under section 113
of the RFCTLAR R Act, issued clarification, thereby directing
that the reference date for calculation of market value for
determination of the amount of compensation in such cases
would be 01.01.2014. It is contended that the clarification
issued by the Central Government, in reference to the
acquisition proceedings governed by the MRTP Act, wherein
the Award has not been declared on 01.01.2014 would apply to
such proceedings that have been initiated, and the reference
date shall have to be prescribed as 01.01.2014. It is
contended that the legislature never intended to make the

17/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

provisions of the 1894 Act partly applicable alongwith with the
provisions of RFCTLAR R Act. If the provision of section
24(1) of RFCTLAR R Act is read in consortium with Rule 19 of
the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra, the reference
date made applicable to the acquisition proceedings under the
1894 Act shall also have to be made applicable to the
proceedings under the MRTP Act, The benefits under the
RFCTLAR R Act in respect of computation of amount of
compensation have been extended to the proceedings of
acquisition under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966. Considering the peculiar nature of clarification
issued under section 113 of the RFCTLAR R Act, it must
apply, according to Shri Godbole, with equal force to such
acquisition proceedings also.

15. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
State, relying upon the judgment in the case of Girnar Traders
(3) (cited supra) as well as the full bench judgment in the case
of Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh (cited supra) as well as the
observations made by the Division Bench of this court in writ
petition no. 4790 of 2018 decided on 6 th August, 2018
contends that the interpretation put up on behalf of the
Petitioner and by Shri Godbole is not acceptable. It is
contended that the proceedings of acquisition in respect of
reserved sites, prescribed under the final development plan,
are governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act. The MRTP Act is a complete code in
itself. The provisions relating to determination of the amount
of compensation can be made applicable and those will have

18/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

to be read in the provisions of Sectionsections 125 and Section126 since
those provisions are incorporated in the statute. It is a case
of the legislation by incorporation and not the legislation by
reference. Section 105-A which has been introduced in the
RFCTLAR R Act, by way of amendment by the State of
Maharashtra, does not have applicability and in view of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Chandrakant Patil (cited supra) it would be difficult to accept
the contention of the petitioner that the clarification issued
by the Union of India under section 113 of the RFCTLAR R
Act, will have applicability to the proceedings initiated under
the MRTP Act.

16. The issue raised by the Government of Maharashtra
taking recourse to section 113 of RFCTLAR R Act was “for
calculation of market value under Sectionsection 24 (1)(a), reference
date should be 01.01.2014 (commencement of RFCTLAR R
Act) or date of issuance of preliminary notification under 1894
Act”. The opinion issued by the Department of Legal Affairs
is in reference to proceedings initiated under SectionLand Acquisition
Act. The explanation issued by the Department of Legal Affairs
is with the reference date for calculation of market value under
Sectionsection 24(1)(a) should be 01.01.2014 (commencement of
RFCTLAR R Act, 2013), as the section reads “in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the SectionLand
Acquisition Act, 1894; where no Award under Sectionsection 11 of
the said SectionLand Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply.” Under Sectionsection 26 reference date is

19/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

the date of preliminary notification, but Sectionsection 24 is a special
case of application of the Act in retrospective cases and a
later date of determination of market value is suggested
(i.e. 01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land owners/
farmers/ affected families get enhanced compensation under
the provisions of the RFCTLAR R Act (as also recommended
by Standing Committee in its 31st report).

17. The reference made by the State Government was
in relation to the proceedings initiated by issuing preliminary
notification under the SectionLand Acquisition Act and the clarification
that has been issued is also in relation to the proceedings
initiated under the SectionLand Acquisition Act. So far as the
proceedings for acquisition in respect of reserved sites
prescribed under the final development plan are initiated
under the provisions of MRTP Act.

18. In the matter of Girnar Traders (cited supra), the
question referred for determination by the larger Bench was
that “Whether the provisions of Sectionsection 11-A of the Land
Acquisition Act, amongst other provisions introduced by
SectionCentral Act (68 of 1984) would apply to Chapter VII of the
MRTP Act”. While considering the provisions of the SectionLand
Acquisition Act, 1894, the Supreme Court observed in
paragraph-66 of the judgment that the SectionLand Acquisition Act is
a self-contained code within the framework of its limited
purpose i.e. acquisition of land. It provides for complete
machinery for acquisition of land including the process of
execution, payment of compensation as well as legal remedies

20/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

in case of any grievances. Marked distinctions have been
recorded between statutory provisions of the two Acts i.e.
SectionLand Acquisition Act and MRTP Act. In paragraph 67 of the
Judgment in column at serial no. 9 of the chart, so far as the
SectionLand Acquisition Act is concerned, it is recorded that the
market value of the land has to be determined as on the date
of issuance of notification under Sectionsection 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act. So far as the MRTP Act is concerned, it is
recorded that the market value is determined with reference
to the date/dates specified in Sectionsection 126(3) and upon
issuance of a declaration under Sectionsection 126(2) in the manner
for issuance of declaration under Sectionsection 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has proceeded
to observe that MRTP Act is a self-contained code. It would be
appropriate to refer to the observations made in paragraph
nos. 84 and 85 of the judgment which read thus :

“84. The MRTP Act besides being a code in itself
has one pre-dominant purpose, i.e., planned
development. Other matters are incidental and,
therefore, should be construed to achieve that
pre-dominant object. All the provisions of the
SectionLand Acquisition Act cannot be applied to the
MRTP Act. The provisions of the MRTP Act have to
be implemented in their own field. As far as the
provisions relating to preparation, approval and
execution of the development plans are
concerned, there is hardly any dependency of
the SectionState Act on the provisions of the SectionLand
Acquisition Act. It may be necessary, sometimes,
to acquire land which primarily would be for the
purpose of planned development as
contemplated under the MRTP Act. Some of the
provisions of the SectionState Act have specifically
referred to some of the provisions of the Land

21/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

SectionAcquisition Act but for the limited purpose of
acquiring land. Thus, the purpose of such
reference is, obviously, to take aid of the
provisions of the SectionCentral Act only for the purpose
of acquiring a land in accordance with law stated
therein rather than letting any provision of the
SectionCentral Act hamper or obstruct the principal
object of the SectionState Act, i.e. execution of the
planned development.

85. There can hardly be any hesitation in
concluding that the MRTP Act is a self-contained
code and does not lose its colour or content of
being a self-contained code merely because it
makes a reference to some of the provisions of
SectionLand Acquisition Act for acquisition of land for
the purpose of MRTP Act and determination of
compensation in that behalf. The referred
provisions of the SectionLand Acquisition Act may only
be taken recourse to that limited extent, within
the extensive framework and for the purpose of
MRTP Act. Therefore, MRTP Act is an Act which
completely provides for various steps in relation
to execution of its object, constitution of various
authorities to implement the underlying scheme
of planned development, machinery for
interested persons to raise their claims for
adjudication under the provisions of this Act or at
best to an authority referred to in the Act. Thus,
we have no hesitation in holding that the MRTP
Act is a complete code in itself.”

19. In paragraph no. 99 of the judgment it is observed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that ” Market value of the land
has to be determined with reference to the date specified in
clauses (i) to (iii) of sub-section (3) of Sectionsection 126. In terms of
proviso to Section 126(2) if the declaration is not made
within one year from the date of publication of the draft

22/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

regional plan or any other plan or the scheme, as the case may
be, the authority loses the right to make such a declaration.
Exception to this is contemplated under Sectionsection 126(4) that
despite the above consequences, the Government still has
the right to make a fresh declaration for acquisition of the land
subject to the modification that the market value of the land
shall be the market value at the date of declaration in the
Official Gazette published for acquiring the land afresh. It is
also observed in the said judgment (Para 108) that the entire
SectionLand Acquisition Act cannot be made applicable to the
proceedings under the MRTP Act, where, unlike the SectionLand
Acquisition Act, the proceedings commence and
consequences take place the moment the land is designated
or reserved under a plan, draft plan or even scheme. On the
contrary, the proceedings under the SectionLand Acquisition Act start
when the notification under Sectionsection 4 of that Act is issued.
The twin conclusions must be drawn that (i) MRTP Act is self
contained code in itself, and (ii) proceedings for acquisition
of land, in respect of the reserved sites, prescribed under the
development plan, commences with the issuance of the
notification under section 126 of the MRTP Act and in the
manner, as laid down under Sectionsection 6 of the Act, 1894. The
notification issued under Sectionsection 126 (2) of the MRTP Act is in
the manner as provided under Sectionsection 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The reference date for determination for
amount of compensation under the MRTP Act is issuance of
notification under Sectionsection 126(2) of the Act. The purpose for
enacting the MRTP Act is referable to planned development
and acquisition is an incidental aspect thereof. The planned

23/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

development is quite different from merely “achieving a public
purpose”, for which the land is acquired under the provisions
of the SectionLand Acquisition Act. The provisions relating to planned
development of the site or any part thereof, read in
conjunction with the object of the SectionState Act, show that
different time-frames are required for initiation, finalisation and
complete execution of such development plans. The Apex
Court has concluded in paragraph no. 191 of the judgment
“For the reasons stated in the judgment , we hold that the
MRTP Act is a self-contained code. Further, we hold that
provisions introduced in the SectionLand Acquisition Act, 1894 by
SectionCentral Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent of acquisition of
land, payment of compensation and recourse to legal
remedies provided under the said Act, can be read into an
acquisition controlled by the provisions of Chapter VII of the
MRTP Act but with a specific exception that the provisions of
the SectionLand Acquisition Act in so far 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”.

20. The Supreme Court has held with reference to the
provisions of the SectionLand Acquisition Act that the provisions of
section 126 of the MRTP is an instance of legislation by
incorporation and not legislation by reference. The
consequence is that there is only limited applicability to the
certain provisions relating to determination of the amount of

24/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

compensation; whereas subsequent amendment to the Act
incorporated are specifically excluded from its operation.

21. In the matter of Mehtab (cited supra), the issue
referred for consideration was “Whether the provisions of
section 24(2) of the RFCTLAR R Act, 2013, as regards
lapsing of the acquisition would apply to the acquisition
proceedings initiated in terms of sections 125 to 127 of the
MRTP Act, 1966”. The issue has been answered in the
negative for the reasons recorded by the Full Bench in the
judgment.

22. The argument before the Full Bench was that
since the Act of 1894 has been repealed and the RFCTLAR R
Act has been re-enacted, unless the contra- intention is
apparent, the reference under MRTP Act has to be construed
as reference to the provisions so enacted, in view of the
Sectionsection 8 of the General Clauses Act. The Full Bench has
ruled out the applicability of the provisions of Sectionsections 4 to Section15
of the Act of 2013. Considering the scheme of MRTP Act,
such social impact assessment report is not required.
Reiterating the view taken by the Apex Court in the matter of
Girnar Traders (3), it is recorded that the provisions which
provide for default resulting in lapsing of acquisition will not
apply. No provision which provides different time frame and
lapsing of acquisition can be imported into the scheme of
MRTP Act, neither by implication of or by resorting to Sectionsection 8
of the General Clauses Act, this position of law can be
overridden. No such legislative intent can be culled out from

25/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

the proviso to Sectionsection 125 nor any contra- intention is
apparent.

23. In so far as extending more benefits or to enact
any law to enhance or add any entitlement which confer
higher compensation and to make provisions for rehabilitation
and resettlement which are more beneficial; the State
Government is empowered under section 107 of the RFCTLAR
R Act to enact a law. Rules have also been framed by the
State of Maharashtra in the year 2015 and Rule 19 also
provides for cases, where a declaration has been made prior to
31st December 2013 and the proceedings are continued, the
amount of compensation shall be determined as per the
formula provided in Sectionsections 26 to Section30 for the RFCTLAR R Act.
It is thus amply clear that the State is empowered to provide
appropriate additional benefits in terms of the compensation.

24. So far as the clarification that has been issued by
the Central Government pursuant to the query raised by the
State under Sectionsection 113 of the Act of 2013, it refers to the
proceedings initiated by issuing preliminary notification under
SectionLand Acquisition Act; whereas the explanation also refers to
the cases where notification issued and the proceedings are
initiated under the SectionLand Acquisition Act. As has been recorded
earlier, referring to the judgment in the matter of “Girnar
Traders”, that the proceeding for acquisition for taking over
reserved sites prescribed under development plan is initiated
under the MRTP Act. The MRTP Act is a complete code in
itself. Under MRTP Act the date of issuance of a declaration

26/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

under Sectionsection 126(2) is the reference date for determination
of the amount of compensation.

25. In view of the observations made in paragraph 67
at serial no. 9 of the column in relation to the acquisition of
land under MRTP Act, the market value has to be determined
with reference to the date/ dates specified in Sectionsection 126(3)
and upon issuance of a declaration under Sectionsection 126(2) in
the manner for issuance of declaration under Sectionsection 6 of the
1894 Act, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Girnar
Traders (cited supra).

26. In so far as the argument advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relying upon provisions of
Rule 9 of the Rules framed by the State of Maharashtra, it
cannot be controverted that it would be open for the State
Government to provide for or grant better benefits to the
claimants, however, until such steps are taken, the benefits
accruable in reference to the acquisition proceedings initiated
under the provisions of the SectionLand Acquisition Act, cannot be
automatically made applicable in cases of acquisition,
governed under the MRTP Act. In this context, it would be
appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of
this court in the matter of Chandrakant Mahadev Patil (supra).
This court has referred to Sectionsection 105-A of the Act of 2013
incorporated by Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 2018, which
reads thus :

11 Now, we come to Sectionsection 105A of the said Act

27/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

of 2013 incorporated by the Maharashtra Act
No.XXXVII of 2018. Section 105A reads thus :-

“105-A.(1) Subject to sub-section (2), the
provisions of this Act shall not apply to acquisition
of land under the enactments specified in the Fifth
Schedule.

(2)The State Government may, by notification,
within one year from the date of commencement
of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement(Maharashtra Amendment) Act,
2018, direct that any of the provisions of this Act,
relating to the determinationof compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule and
rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the
Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to
the affected families, shall apply to the cases of
land acquisition under the enactments specified in
the Fifth Schedule or shall apply with such
exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the
compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act
relating to the compensation, rehabilitation and
resettlement as may be specified in the
notification, as the case may be :

Provided that, no such notification shall be
issued except on a resolution passed by both
Houses of the State Legislature.”

(emphasis added)

12 By Section 105-A, even the Fifth Schedule is
added to the said Act of 2013 which reads thus :-

THE FIFTH SCHEDULE
(See Sectionsection 105-A)

LIST OF MAHARASHTRA ENACTMENTS REGULATING
LAND ACQUISITION IN THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA

1.The Maharashtra Highways Act (LV of 1955).

2.The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,

28/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

1961 (Mah. III of1962).

3.The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 (Mah.XXXVII of 1966).

4.The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
Act, 1976(Mah. XXVIII of 1977).”

It is observed by the Division Bench that Sectionsection 125 and
section 126 of the MRTP Act existed before the Maharashtra
Act No. XLII of 2015 came into force. The MRTP Act apart
from prescribing provisions for planned development also
provide for acquisition of the land required, reserved or
designated for public purpose in a regional plan, development
plan or town planning scheme under the MRTP Act by taking
recourse to the provisions of the SectionLand Acquisition Act, 1894.

27. The question that fell for consideration is as to
whether the provisions of the 1894 Act or Act of 2013 have
been included in the MRTP Act by a mere reference or
citation of one statute into another or by incorporation.
Referring to the full bench judgment of this court, the
Division Bench has concluded that the provisions of the Act
of 2013, found in provisions of Sectionsection 125 and section 126 of
the MRTP Act are by way of incorporation and not by way of a
reference and that is why a modification, repeal or re-
enactment of the Act of 2013 will have no repercussions on
the provisions of sections 125 and 126 of the MRTP Act. The
Division Bench of this court has concluded that the
incorporation of sub-section (1) of Sectionsection 105-A by
Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 2018 will have no impact on
the applicability of the said Act of 2013 to acquisition under

29/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

the MRTP Act to the extent permitted by sections 125 and 126
of the MRTP Act.

28. As has been recorded above, it is always
permissible for the State Government to extend the
additional benefits to the claimants, affected by the
acquisition proceedings initiated, taking recourse to the
provisions of MRTP Act. Section 105-A, as amended by virtue
of the State Amendment in the year 2018, will have no impact
so far as its applicability to the existing provisions of the Act
of 2013 to the extent permitted by sections 125 and 126 of
the MRTP Act. The Division Bench has also turned down the
arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioner in the said
writ petition that adopting the arguments as has been
recorded above would render sub-section (2) of Section 105-
A redundant. It is recorded by the Court that it is possible for
the State by taking recourse to sub-section (2) of section 105-
A to apply the other provisions of the Act of 2013 to the
provisions of the MRTP Act. Moreover, sub-section (2) of
Sectionsection 105-A not only applies to MRTP Act but also to other
enactments listed in the Fifth Schedule. It is thus concluded
that in any manner sub-Sectionsection 2 of Sectionsection 105-A would not
become redundant and it would be open for the State to
extend beneficial provisions to cases of acquisition under the
MRTP Act.

29. In the instant matter, no such decision has been
taken by the State Government. The decision taken in relation
to the proceedings for acquisition initiated under the Land

30/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::
wp9630.17.odt

SectionAcquisition Act cannot be automatically made applicable to
the proceedings for acquisition initiated under the MRTP Act.
As has been laid down in the matter of Girnar Traders (cited
supra) the proceedings of acquisition commences with
issuance of notification under section 126 of the MRTP Act
and that the reference date for determination of the amount of
compensation is the date of issuance of such notification.

30. For the reasons, as recorded above, we do not find
any force in the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner.
In the circumstances, Writ Petition No.9630 of 2017 stands
rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

31. In view of the reasons recorded for rejection of Writ
Petition No.9630 of 2017, Writ petitions Nos.2373/2015,
1163/2018, 1165/2018 and Civil Application Nos.324/2019 and
307/2017 are also disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as
to costs.

32. After this order is pronounced, request is made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners for continuation of the
interim relief in respect of protection of the possession. It is
informed that the Award has already been declared.

33. In view of the reasons recorded above, no interim
relief. Request stands rejected.

(N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J.)

31/31

::: Uploaded on – 07/08/2019 08/08/2019 02:07:51 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation