MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
B 
c 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MARCH 4, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDJ, JJ.] 
Urban Development: 
Maharashtra Regional Town'Planning Act, 1996; Section 126: 
Acquisition proceedings-Determination of compensation under the 
provisions of MRTP Act and Land Acquisition Act-Amendments made 
thereafter in the provisions of Land A~quisition Act conferring certain additional 
benefits to land holder/claimant-Applicability of-Held: When some provisions 
D of the earlier Act on the same subject have been referred! incorporated in the 
later statute by the legislature, any amendment made in such provisions will 
have to be read into the later statute wherein they are referred to provided 
such amendments are not inconsistent with the other provisions of the later 
statute-Amended provision of L.A. Act relating to award of compensation 
E would apply with full vigour to MR. T.P. Act-On construing so the provision 
would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India-Hence benefits 
under amended provision of Land Acquisition Act had been rightly extended 
to the claimant by the Courts below-Land Acquisition Act with Amendment 
Act 68of1984-Sections 23 and 28-/nterpretation of Statutes-Incorporation 
by reference-Constitution of India-Article 14. 
F 
Appellant-Corporation had initiated acquisition proceedings against 
respondent-claimant under the provision of Maharashtra Regional Town 
Planning Act (MRTP Act) read with the Land Acquisition Act. 
Subsequently, certain amendments were made in Sections 23 and 28 of 
G the Land Acquisition Act conferring certain additional benefits to 
claimant/landholder. On denial of these benefits the respondent/claimant 
preferred an appeal before the District Court-which awarded the benefits 
as per amended provisions of the L.A. Act. On appeal, the Judgment was 
affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
It was contended for the appellant that since amendment in the 
530 
• 
-
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TPT. CORPN. v. STATE 
531 
relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to compensation/ A 
other benefits was made after the enactment of MRTP Act, they were liable 
to be ignored in relation to an acquisition under MRTP Act. 
On behalf of the respondent-claimant, it was submitted that in the 
absence of any provision in the MRTP Act to exclude any future 
amendment to be made in the Land Acquisition Act, the amended B 
provisions in the L.A. Act shall t.'! made applicable to the acquisition 
proceedings initiated under the MRTP Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is a well established legislative practice to borrow the C 
provision of an earlier Act on a particular subject by making a broad 
reference to the earlier Act or some or most of its provisions therein so as 
to make them applicable to the relevant subject matter dealt with by the 
later statute. This is done primarily as a matter of convenience in order 
to avoid verbatim repetition of the provisions of the earlier Act. Very often D 
such reference is followed by certain modifications subject to which the 
earlier Act should apply. When such legislative device is adopted, the 
relevant provisi'lns of the earlier Act will apply mutatis mutandis to the 
matters governed by the latter Act. But, the difficulty in construction 
would arise when the earlier Act is repealed or amended/modified. The 
intricate question then would be whether the repeal or amendments should E 
be ignored and the borrowed provisions should be read as they were at 
the time of enactment of later Act or the provisions of earlier Act should 
be applied subject to subsequent amendments/modifications. If there is a 
definite indication in the later Act as to the applicability or otherwise of 
subsequent amendments in the Act referred to, no difficulty arises; but, F 
the problem arises when there is no such indication. Then, there arises 
two allied but qualitatively different concepts of statutory interpretation 
known as incorporation by reference and mere reference or citation of 
earlier statute in the later Act. In the former case, the provisions of the 
incorporated statute as they stood at the relevant time when incorporating 
statute was enacted will ever continue to be read into that later statute G 
unless the legislature takes a positive step to amend the later statute in 
tune with the amendments. However, the legal effect i

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