Land Acquisition Act, 1894/Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:

Section 11A/Sections 126, 127

Interpretation and applicability of newly inserted S.11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the MRTP Act - Referred to larger Bench - There is no application under clause (s) of S.126(1) moved by the officer authorized by the Municipal Corporation i.e. the Municipal Commissioner to the State Government for acquisition of the land - Thus, it cannot be said that steps as contemplated were taken for the commencement of acquisition proceedings - Hence, appellants are entitled to deemed dereservation and permitted to utilize the land as permissible under S.127 of the MRTP Act - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 246.

Interpretation of Statutes - When language of the Legislature admits of two constructions, Court should not adopt the construction which would lead to absurdity or obvious injustice-The construction which would be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute proposed to be regulating should be chosen-The alternative is to be rejected which will introduce uncertainly, friction or confusion with the working of the system.

Words and Phrases:

'Steps' - Meaning of in the context of S.127 of Maharshtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

C.A.No.3922 of 2007 has been filed against the dismissal of Writ Petition by the Bombay High Court holding that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended is not applicable to the proceedings for acquisition initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, relying on State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and Ors., (1995] Supp. 2 sec 475.

Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 has been referred to the present 3 Judge Bench after a 2 Judge Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of the decision rendered in Sant Joginder Singh's case.

On behalf of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, it was contended that the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) sent a letter to the State of Maharashtra enclosing therewith a copy of Resolution No. 956 dated 16.9.2002, requesting that steps be taken for acquisition of the land and this step taken by the respondents would constitute 'steps' for the acquisition of the land under clause (c) of Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act, the same having been taken on 17.9.2002 when the period of six months had not expired, the provision of de-reservation under Section 127 would not apply.

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the intent and purpose of Section 127 of the MRTP Act is the acquisition of land within six months or the steps are taken for acquisition of the land within six months, which could only be when a declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is published in the Official Gazette; that the words "if within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition" are not susceptible of a literal construction and the words have to be given a meaning which safeguards a citizen against arbitrary and irrational executive action which, in fact, may not result in acquisition of the land for a long period to come; and that it cannot be doubted that the period of 10 years is a long period where the land of the owner is kept in reservation. Section 127 gives an opportunity to the owner for dereservation of the land if no steps are taken for acquisition by the authorities with in a period of six months inspite of service of notice for de-reservation after the period of 10 years has expired. 

It was also contended for the appellants that the decision in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and Ors., (1988) Supp. SCC 55 squarely covers the proposition of law wherein it has been held that the development or the planning authority must take recourse to acquisition with some amount of promptitude in order that the compensation paid to the expropriated owner bears a just relation to the real value of the land; and that the period of six months provided by Section 127 upon the expiry of which the reservation of the land under a development plan lapses, is a valuable safeguard to the citizens against the arbitrary and irrational executive action. Section 127 of the Act is a fetter upon the power of eminent domain.

On behalf of the State it was submitted that in para 11 of the said judgment, it is clearly held that the steps for commencement of the acquisition obviously refer to the steps contemplated by Section 126(1) which means the step taken of making an application under clause (c) of Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act and that this Court had already observed that after the service of notice from the owner or any person interested in the land as provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the steps taken within six months of such service, included any step taken by the appropriate authority for the acquisition of land as contemplated under the provisions of Section 126 (1) of the MRTP Act It has been further contended that such observation of this Court is binding as precedent.

Allowing Civil Appeal No.3922 of 2007 and as regards Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003 referring the question regarding interpretation and applicability of Seetion 11A introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for consideration by a larger Bench, the Court.