Pith and substance upheld the industrial development statute, with the corporation and acquisition scheme also sustained.

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was upheld on the basis of pith and substance: its dominant purpose was planned industrial development, and land acquisition was only an auxiliary incident within the State's legislative field. The Corporation created under the Act was not a trading corporation because it functioned as a statutory instrumentality for industrial estates and amenities, with commercial powers only ancillary to that purpose and no shareholder profit structure. The Act's special acquisition and compensation procedure was also valid, as it provided its own scheme for public industrial purposes and did not create unconstitutional procedural discrimination merely because it differed from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature on the true character and object of the enactment. (ii) Whether the Corporation constituted under the Act was a trading corporation. (iii) Whether the procedure for acquisition of land and determination of compensation under the Act involved impermissible procedural discrimination or unconstitutional restriction.

Issue (i): Whether the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature on the true character and object of the enactment.

Analysis: The validity of the Act depended on its pith and substance, not on incidental overlap. Its dominant purpose was the orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in the State, with acquisition of land as an auxiliary and necessary incident for that object. Industries fell within the State legislative field, while acquisition of land was also within the permissible constitutional field. The Act therefore could not be characterised as a law relating to incorporation, regulation or winding up of a trading corporation.

Conclusion: The Act was within the legislative competence of the State and was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Corporation constituted under the Act was a trading corporation.

Analysis: The Corporation was created by statute as an instrumentality to implement planned industrial development, with functions confined to establishing industrial estates, developing industrial areas, providing amenities, and making land, buildings and sheds available for industrial use. Its powers to acquire, hold, transfer, lease and sell property, or to receive rents and profits, were ancillary to the statutory purpose and did not give it the commercial character of an ordinary trading company. The absence of shareholder ownership, dividend distribution, and business carried on for profit was decisive.

Conclusion: The Corporation was not a trading corporation.

Issue (iii): Whether the procedure for acquisition of land and determination of compensation under the Act involved impermissible procedural discrimination or unconstitutional restriction.

Analysis: The Act operated as a special enactment for industrial development and prescribed its own acquisition procedure for public purposes connected with that scheme. The compensation mechanism allowed agreement, failing which the matter went to the Collector, subject to Government approval only in specified cases and with an appeal to the Court. That structure did not deprive the Collector of adjudicatory power or create invalid discrimination merely because it differed from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Conclusion: The acquisition and compensation procedure under the Act was valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Act failed in all respects, and the statutory scheme for industrial development, land acquisition and compensation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining legislative validity, the Court must identify the pith and substance of the enactment, and statutory powers ancillary to a dominant public purpose do not convert a development corporation into a trading corporation or invalidate a special acquisition and compensation scheme.

---