LexM/S. GIRNAR TRADERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MIS. GIRNAR TRADERS v. ST A TE OF MAHA.RASHTRA AND ORS. OCTOBER 14, 2004 B [SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ .] Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Chapter VJI-ss. 126(2) and (4)-Acquisition of land under the Act- C Failure to make award within two years from date of declaration under sub- s. (2) of s.126-Effect of-Applicability of s.11 ~A and other provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 to acquisition of land made under the State Act-Decision in Sant Joginder Singh's case* holding that s.11-A of Central Act would not apply to acquisition of land D made under the State Act, referred to larger Bench for reconsideration- Land Acquisition Act, 1894-s. l l-A. E *State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and Ors., (1995) Supp. 2 SCC 475, referred to larger Bench for reconsideration. Gauri Shankar Gaur and Ors. v. State of UP. _and Ors., [1994) 1 SCC 92; Nagpur Improvement Trust and Anr. v. Vithal Rao and Ors., [1973) 1 SCC 500 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2003J 4 SCC 200, relied on. F UP. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam, [1998) 2 SCC 467, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3703 of2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2000 of the Bombay High G Court in W.P. No. 822 of2000. VA l\1ohta, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary and Neelakanth Nayak with him for the Appellant. V.N. Ganpule, Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Ravindra K. Adsure, for Mukesh K. Giri, H 490 .. GIRNAR TRADERS v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 491 Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta and Brij Kishor Sah with them for the A Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the B writ petition of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question for consideration is: Whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984 can be read into the provisions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for an acquisition thereunder? c The appellant is a registered partnership firm owning certain lands situated within the jurisdiction of Second Respondent, Jalgaon Municipal Council. The land owned by the appellant was subject to a reservation in the draft development plan of Jalgaon town, which was published on 19.3.1987. Since the appellant was unable to develop the land under reservation, and no D steps were being taken by the Jalgaon Municipal Council to acquire the said land under the provisions of The Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.R.T.P. Act'), the appellant issued a notice dated 19.1.1989 under Section 49(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act, calling upon the State Government to either confirm or refuse the purchase notice within the period fixed under Section 49 of the M.R.T.P. Act. E On 25.7.1989 the State Government, acting under Section 49(4) of the M.R.T.P. Act, confirmed the purchase notice issued by the appellant. Despite confirmation of the purchase notice, Second Respondent, Jalgaon Municipal Council did not take any steps under Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act, nor did it apply to the State Government for acquisition of the land under reservation. F Ultimately, on 3.10.1991, the First Respondent State Government issued a notification under Section 126(4) of the M.R.T.P. Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declaring that the concerned land was required for a public purpose as indicated in the notification. This notification expressly G mentions that the period of three years prescribed under Section 126(2) of the M.R.T.P. Act was over and, therefore, the State Government was acting under sub section (4) of Section 126 of the M.R.T.P. Act. It is the case of the appellant that it had no knowledge of this declaration dated 3.10.1991 as no individual notice has been served on it, though this H 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A declaration was published in the Official Gazette on 15.10.1991. Despite the declaration under Section 126(4) of the M.R.T.P. Act, as aforesaid, nothing happened till March, 1994. On 23 .3. l 994 the appellant issued second purchase notice under Section 49(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act. B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.