Special acquisition statute prevails over later general law amendments; fresh declaration preserved the acquisition process.

The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act's acquisition scheme was held to operate independently of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because the special statute incorporated only selected provisions of the general law. Later amendments to the Land Acquisition Act did not automatically apply. The specific saving mechanism in Section 126(4) allowed a fresh declaration where the original declaration was delayed or time had expired, and that delay did not defeat the acquisition. Accordingly, the notification did not lapse, the fresh declaration was valid, and the proceedings were not time-barred on the basis of Section 11-A.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification under Section 125 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lapsed for want of a declaration within the prescribed period, and whether a fresh declaration under Section 126(4) was valid; (ii) whether Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applied to acquisitions under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 so as to render the acquisition proceedings time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the notification under Section 125 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 lapsed for want of a declaration within the prescribed period, and whether a fresh declaration under Section 126(4) was valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the notification under Section 125 as the foundation for acquisition, but Section 126(4) expressly enabled the State Government to make a fresh declaration where no declaration was made within time or where the period had expired before the Amendment Act commenced. The provision also fixed compensation by reference to the market value on the date of the fresh declaration, showing that the legislature intended the earlier notification not to lapse merely because the declaration was delayed. The scheme was read as a safeguard balancing public purpose and the landowner's interest, and the failure to publish the declaration within three years did not nullify the acquisition machinery.

Conclusion: The notification under Section 125 did not lapse, and the fresh declaration under Section 126(4) was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applied to acquisitions under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 so as to render the acquisition proceedings time-barred.

Analysis: The Act had incorporated only specific provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not Section 11-A. The distinction between legislation by incorporation and adoption by reference was central: where a later statute incorporates selected provisions of an earlier statute, subsequent amendments to the earlier statute do not automatically become part of the later statute. Further, the fixing of compensation principles under Section 23 was treated as substantive, whereas the time for making an award under Section 11-A was procedural; the presence of Section 126(4) indicated that the absence of an award within two years would not render the notification non est. The later amendment to the Land Acquisition Act therefore did not govern the Act by implication.

Conclusion: Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not apply, and the acquisition proceedings were not time-barred on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 governed the acquisition independently of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the delayed declaration did not defeat the acquisition where Section 126(4) applied.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute incorporates selected provisions of a general acquisition law, later amendments to the general law do not apply unless expressly adopted, and a specific saving provision permitting a fresh declaration prevents lapse of the acquisition notification.

---