Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendments made to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984, particularly the time-limit for making the award under Section 11A, apply to acquisitions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
Analysis: The acquisition scheme under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was examined in the light of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court noted that while the special town planning statute contains its own mechanism for purchase notice and declaration, it does not provide a complete code on compensation and related acquisition consequences. Earlier decisions had read the compensation provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into similar planning statutes to preserve constitutional validity and avoid hostile discrimination between landholders whose lands were acquired under different statutory routes. The Court also considered the effect of the 1984 amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, including the enhanced benefits and the statutory time-limit for making an award, and found no convincing basis to exclude Section 11A when the Act is otherwise attracted to acquisition under the planning statute. The contrary view in an earlier decision was treated as requiring reconsideration.
Conclusion: Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may apply to acquisitions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the earlier contrary decision requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.