LexPOONA TIMBER MERCHANTS AND SAW MILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 547 POONA TIMBER MERCHANTS AND A SAW MILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2152 of 2008) MARCH 27, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H, KAPADIA, JJ.] Maharashtra Regional and town planning Act, 1966: s. 127- Scope and ambit of - Held: Similar matter referred to c larger Bench - Held: In fitness of things, the present case also need to be heard along with those matters. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2152 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2005 & D ~ J., 02.05.2005 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7846 of 2004. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2153-2156 of 2008. E T.R.Andhyarujina, R.F. Nariman, K.K. Venugopal Dushyant A. Dave. Shyam Divan, Arun Jaitley and S. Ganesh, S.C. Birla, Subrat Birla, Anil V. Antur Kar, Markand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Hari F ·::.. Kumar G. (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co,), Girish Godbole, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah, Rahul Joshi, Syed Nagvi, Smieetta Inna, Rajesh Kamlakar Satpalkar, Rajesh Kumar, S.S. ShindeandV.N. RaghupathyfortheAppearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In all these cases certain provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short the 'Act') call 547 H 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A for determination. Basically the scope and ambit of Section 127 of the Act is the pivotal provision. Three writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment. Writ petition no. 7846 of 2004 was filed by M/s CV Shah and A.V. Bhat. Writ petition no.9644 of 2004 was filed by Tajuddin Mohhammadbhai while B writ petition no.5077 of 2004 was filed by Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association. By the common j.. judgment the High Court partly allowed the writ petition nos. 7846 and 9644 of 2004 while writ petition no.5077 of 2004 was dismissed. The High Court while granting partly relief in the writ c petitions held as follows: "(i) Writ Petition Nos. 7846 of 2004 and 9644 of 2004 are partly allowed. (ii) The designation of the subject land being survey no.577, D Hissa No.1, Survey No.577, Hissa No.2, Survey No.577, Hissa No.3 and Survey No.578, Hissa No.1 (part) in revised Development Plan of Pune City notified no. ,.. 5.1.1987 for 'Timber Industries' is declared to have lapsed under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966. E (iii) Writ Petition no.5077 of 2004 is dismissed. No costs." 3. After hearing all these appeals were concluded, it is noticed that scope and ambit of Section 127 came up for F consideration by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003, civil appeal no.3922 of 2007 as three-Judge Bench was hearing the matter. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan as his Lordship was lL the then, inter alia, observed as follows: "When we interpret Section 127 of the Act, it is not possible G to forget the impact of Section 126(1) of the Act. Obviously, the provisions have to be read harmoniously. The court can only postulate the question whether the authority under the MRTP Act has done which it possibly could, in terms t -,.- of the statute. Therefore, while reading Section 127, we H have to take note of the fact that the authority under the POONA TIMBER MER. & SAW MILL OWNERS ASSN. 549 v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] --"1 MRZ P Act can only make an application for acquisition A under the Land Acquisition Act and nothing more. Therefore, when Section 127 of the MRTP Act says that if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition the reservation shall B be deemed to lapse. We have to see what the Authority .J, under MRTP Act has done. The first part of the provision above quoted is unambiguous and that is a case where the land is actually acquired. Or, in other words, the acquisition is complete. The second limb above quoted c shows that it is possible to avert the lapse of the scheme if steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition. The step that the authority under the MRTP Act can commence, is the step of applying to the State Government to acquire such land under the Land Acquisition Act. After D all, the legislature has given the authority a locus ~ poenitentiae for invoking the machiner
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.