M/S. GIRNAR TRADERS versus ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 27-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. GIRNAR TRADERS 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2007 
[B.N. AGRA WAL, P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN AND 
P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning 
Act, 1966: 
Section I IA/Sections 126, 127 
A 
B 
c 
Interpretation and applicability of newly inserted S.11 A of the Land 
Acquisition Act to the MRTP Act-Referred to larger Bench-There is no 
application under clause (s) of S.126(/) moved by the officer authorized by D 
the Municipal Corporation i.e. the Municipal Commissioner to the State 
Government for acquisition of the land-Thus, it cannot be said that steps 
as contemplated were taken for the commencement of acquisition 
proceedings-Hence, appellants are entitled to deemed dereservation and 
permitted to utilize the land as permissible under S.127 of the MRTP Act- E 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 246. 
Interpretation of Statutes-When language of the Legislature admits of 
two constructions, Court should not adopt the construction which would 
lead to absurdity or obvious injustice-The construction which would be F 
consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute proposed 
to be regulating should be chosen-The alternative is to be rejected which 
will introduce uncertainly, friction or confusion with the working of the 
system. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Steps'-Meaning of in the context of S.127 of Maharshtra Regional 
and Town Planning Act, 1966. 
383 
G 
H 
A 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
C.A.No.3922 of 2007 has been filed against the dismissal of Writ 
Petition by the Bombay High Court holding that Section llA of the Land 
Acquisition Act as amended is not applicable to the proceedings for acquisition 
initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, relying 
on State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and 
B Ors., (1995] Supp. 2 sec 475. 
c 
Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 has been referred to the present 3 Judge 
Bench after a 2 Judge Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of the 
decisio~ rendered in Sant Joginder Singh 's case. 
On behalf of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, it was contended 
that the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) sent a letter to the State of 
Maharashtra enclosing therewith a copy of Resolution No. 956 dated 
16.9.2002, requesting that steps be taken for acquisition of the land and this 
step taken by the respondents would constitute 'steps' for the acquisition of 
D the land under clause (c) of Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act, the same having 
been taken on 17.9.2002 when the period of six months had not expired, the 
provision of de-reservation under Section 127 would not apply. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the intent and purpose 
E of Section 127 of the MRTP Act is the acquisition of land within six months 
or the steps are taken for acquisition of the land within six months, which 
could only be when a declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is published 
in the Official Gazette; that the words "if within six months from the date of 
the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid 
F are commenced for its acquisition" are not susceptible of a literal construction 
and the words have to be given a meaning which safeguards a citizen against 
arbitrary and irrational executive action which, in fact, may not result in 
acquisition of the land for a long period to come; and that it cannot be doubted 
that the period of 10 years is a long period where the land of the owner is 
G kept in reservation. Section 127 gives an opportunity to the owner for de-
reservation of the land if no steps are taken for acquisition by the authorities 
with in a period of six months inspite of service of notice for de-reservation 
after the period of 10 years has expired. 
H 
It was also contended for the appellants that the decision in Municipal 
-{ 
GIRNARTRADERSv. STATE 
385 
Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and .,A 
Ors., (1988) Supp. SCC 55 squarely covers the proposition of law wherein it 
has been held that 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; and that the period of six months provided by Section 127 B 
upon the expiry of which the reservation of the land under a development plan 
lapses,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.