Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act applies to acquisitions under Maharashtra Industrial Development Act

The Bombay HC held that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The court determined that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are adopted by reference in the MID Act through Section 33(5). Citing Article 14 equality principles, the court ruled that different compensation principles cannot apply based on the acquiring authority when land is acquired for public purposes. The court found Section 28-A was enacted to remove inequality in compensation payment, not solely to assist disadvantaged persons. Respondent was directed to consider petitioners' applications for compensation determination based on court awards under Land Acquisition Act provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act to MID Act Acquisitions

Background and Context:
The primary question in these petitions is whether Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for re-determination of compensation based on a court's award, applies to land acquisitions under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (MID Act). The lands of the petitioners were acquired under the MID Act, and they sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act after some landholders received higher compensation through court awards.

Arguments by Petitioners:
The petitioners argued that the provisions of Section 28-A should apply to acquisitions under the MID Act, citing precedents where courts had applied amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MID Act. They referenced the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur v. Shaikh Khatinabi wd/o Abdul Gaffar Shaikh, where it was held that the provisions of Section 34 of the MID Act make a reference to the Land Acquisition Act by reference, thereby incorporating amendments like Section 28-A. They also pointed to the Supreme Court's judgment in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, which allowed for the incorporation of certain provisions of the Land Acquisition Act into the MRTP Act, despite it being a self-contained code.

Arguments by Respondents:
The respondents, represented by the State Government and the Corporation, contended that Section 28-A is sui generis and discriminatory, thus not applicable to the MID Act. They argued that Section 28-A was intended to benefit only those who could not file a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act due to poverty or illiteracy. They also cited judgments where different principles of compensation were upheld for different statutes, arguing that the MID Act and the Land Acquisition Act serve different purposes and thus should not be conflated.

Court's Analysis:
The court examined the object and intent of both the MID Act and the Land Acquisition Act. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized the specific purpose of the MID Act in the development of industrial areas. The court also considered previous judgments that applied amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MID Act, such as Resident Deputy Collector, Pune v. G.N. Landge, where it was held that provisions like Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act applied to the MID Act.

The court further analyzed the landmark judgments in cases like Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, where it was held that different principles of compensation for land acquired under different statutes would be discriminatory. The court noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra allowed for the incorporation of provisions related to compensation and legal remedies from the Land Acquisition Act into the MRTP Act, despite it being a self-contained code.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act should apply to acquisitions under the MID Act to avoid discrimination and ensure equality in compensation for similar quality of land. It held that the MID Act falls within the category of enactments where the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, vis-`a-vis compensation and legal remedies, should be read into. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners' applications for re-determination of compensation based on the court's award, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Final Judgment:
The writ petitions were allowed, and it was held that the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act apply to the acquisitions under the MID Act. The respondent was directed to re-determine the compensation for the petitioners based on the court's award.

Key Paragraphs:
- Paragraph 7: Discusses the object and intent of the MID Act and the Land Acquisition Act.
- Paragraph 8: Refers to previous judgments applying amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to the MID Act.
- Paragraph 10: Analyzes the Supreme Court's stance on different principles of compensation for land acquired under different statutes.
- Paragraph 11: Considers the Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra judgment.
- Paragraph 12: Concludes the applicability of Section 28-A to the MID Act.
- Paragraph 14: Final judgment and directions to the respondent.

---