STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus SANT JOGINDER SINGH KISHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 22-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
v. 
SANT JOGINDER SINGH KISHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 : Compensation 
for· land acquired-Determination of-Absence of express provision-Can be 
' ~ 
determined by applying mutatis mutandis the principles laid down in Section 
c 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Section 125-Effect of amendment-Notification issued there-
under-Did not lapse after expiry of three years--Fresh declaration made 
under Section 126(4) valid. 
D 
Section 126(2)-Effect of amendment-Applicability of-Applied to 
pending as well as later proceedings. 
)..• 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 23-Acquisition of land-Com-
pensation-Determination of-Substantive provision not procedural. 
E 
The Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act; 1966 was amended 
and a notification under Section US of the Act was published. The land 
could be acquired by agreement with the owner, or making an application 
to the State Government for acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
in which event by operation of the proviso to sub-s.(2) s.126, the declara· 
F tion bas 10 be made within three years from the date or the publication or 
notificaUon under s. 125. 'The notification under s.125 is treated as one 
under s.4(1) and the declaration under s.2 of s.ll6 as declartion under s.6 
of the Central Act. The failure to have the declaration published within 
three years entails with the. prohibition to take further action in acquiring 
---
G the land. 
The respondent's land was acquired subsequent to the amendment 
of the Act. The respondeut filed a writ petition in the High Court challeng-
ing the said acquisition. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the 
ground that the amendment would apply only to the pending proceedings 
H and not to later procee1dings. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment tJae 
242 
Sl'ATEOFMAHARASIITRAv.J.SINGHKISHANSINGH 
243 
appellant preferred the present appeal. 
A 
~· 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that since acquisition 
of the land was compulsory expropriation, restrictive interpretation 
should be given; that though there was no express provision that the 
notification published under s.125 would lapse, by operation of s.llA of 
B 
the Land Acquision Act, 1894 introduced by the L.A. Amendment Act 68 
of 1984 award had to be made within two years from the date of declaration 
published under s.6 of the Central Act i.e. under s. 126(2) of the Act; that 
/ 
this period of limiation must be deemed to have been incorporated in the 
\ 
Act; that the only course open to the State was to issue the notification 
under s. 125 aftresh, if law permitted and it should not resort to the c 
publication of the declaration under sub-s. (4J of s. 126; 
/ 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town 
Planning Act, 1966 gives the legislative intent that if declaration is not D 
made within three years of having been made, the aforesaid period expired 
...( 
on the commencement of the Amendment Act, the State Government has 
been empowered to make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land in the 
manner provided by sub- ss. (2) and (3) of s. 126 of the Act. (246-E] 
1.2. The legislature being cognizant of the consequences that would E 
flow from iong delay in publication of the declaration in the official gazette 
under sub-s. (2) of s. 126, provision was made in that behalf to put a fetter 
on the exercise of power under ~.126(2) and simultaneously mitigated the 
hardship to be caused to the public purpose as well as to private interest 
of the owner of the land. [247-F] 
F 
2.1. While permitting the State to exercise its power of eminent 
domain, the owner of the land or the person interested in the land bas been 
/ 
relieved of hard~hip of payment of the compensation as per the price 
prevailing as on the date of publication of the notification under s.125 G 
(s.4(1) of th.e Land Acquisition Act, 1894) and directed that market value . 
be determined as on the date of publication of the fresh declaration under 
sub-s.(4) of s. 126. [247-G] 
2.2. Though declaration under sub-s.(2) of s. 126 is not made within 
three years as prescribed under proviso to sub-s. (2) of s.126! by necessary H, . 
244 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A inference it would be construed that notification under s. 125 does not 
lapse and fresh declarati

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