Land Acquisition Act Provisions Don't Automatically Apply to MRTP Act; Section 11A Lapse Rule Excluded.

The Court held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended, do not automatically apply to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). Specifically, Section 11A, which mandates the lapsing of acquisition if an award is not passed within two years, does not apply to the MRTP Act. Regarding Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the Court concluded that it is sufficient for the authority to apply to the State Government for land acquisition within six months of receiving a purchase notice. The matter was referred to a Constitution Bench for further clarification.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Whether all provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984, can be read into the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for acquisitions under that Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act regarding the lapsing of reservations.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Land Acquisition Act Provisions to MRTP Act
The primary question in the appeals is whether the amendments introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by Act 68 of 1984, particularly Section 11A, which mandates that an acquisition would lapse if an award is not passed within two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, are applicable to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. The MRTP Act is a state legislation aimed at planning the development and use of land in regions and making provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes in respect of the plans under the Town Planning Scheme.

The appellants argued that the MRTP Act has adopted the Land Acquisition Act by reference, and thus any amendments to the Land Acquisition Act would automatically apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. They contended that since Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act provides for the lapsing of acquisition proceedings if an award is not passed within two years, the acquisitions under the MRTP Act should also lapse under the same conditions.

The respondents, representing the State of Maharashtra, countered that the MRTP Act did not incorporate the Land Acquisition Act by reference but only adopted it for limited purposes. They argued that since the MRTP Act did not provide for the lapsing of acquisitions, Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act could not be applied to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. They further contended that the MRTP Act adopted the Land Acquisition Act as it stood in 1966, and subsequent amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, including Section 11A, could not be read into the MRTP Act.

The judgment referred to several precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in Secretary of State Vs. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Societies Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decisions in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam & Ors. and Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vasantrao & Ors., which supported the view that subsequent amendments to a Central Act do not automatically apply to a State Act that has incorporated the Central Act by reference.

The Court concluded that the MRTP Act did not intend for the lapsing of acquisitions and that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act could not be invoked to hold that an acquisition under the MRTP Act would lapse if an award is not passed within two years of the declaration.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act
Section 127 of the MRTP Act deals with the lapsing of reservations if the land is not acquired within ten years from the date on which a final Regional plan or final Development plan comes into force, or if proceedings for the acquisition are not commenced within such period. The appellants argued that the acquisition proceedings must be started within six months of the receipt of a purchase notice, and merely writing to the government for acquiring the land is not sufficient.

The respondents contended that the steps contemplated by Section 127 of the MRTP Act include making an application to the State Government for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act. They relied on the decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association & Ors., which held that it is sufficient if the authority makes an application to the State Government for acquisition.

The Court analyzed the provisions of the MRTP Act and concluded that the authority under the MRTP Act can only make an application to the State Government for acquiring the land and cannot initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, it is sufficient compliance with Section 127 if the authority makes an application to the State Government within six months of receiving a purchase notice.

Referral to Constitution Bench
The Court noted that the questions involved have significant implications for various City and Town Improvement Acts and the planning of cities and towns. It referred the matter to a Constitution Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the principles of incorporation by reference and the interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

The papers were ordered to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

---