MADHAO ATULCHANDRA BAPAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4. Civil Application No. 345/ 2009 filed by the respondent No. 4 is also heard finally.

(2.) Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for time limit of two years for passing award from the date of publication of notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was contended that provisions of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act are applicable to the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act" for brevity) for MIHAN project. It was submitted that notification under section 126 of the MRTP Act, which is equivalent to declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official Gazetteon 7.2.2005 and since award was not passed within a period of two years from that date, the said notification and the land acquisition proceedings stand terminated.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Manohar submitted that though the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Joginder Singh, 1995 AIR(SC) 2181, has held that provisions of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which were inserted vide Amending Act 68 of 1984, are not applicable to the acquisition proceedings under the MRTP Act, however, in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in GirnarTradersVs. State of Maharashtra, 2004 8 SCC 505, (hereinafter referred to as "Girnar-I case") as well as decision of the Apex Court in Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 7 SCC 555, (hereinafter referred to as "Gimar-II case"), the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Joginder Singh's case loses its binding force. It was contended that in view of the observations of the Apex Court in paras (18), (19) and (20) of the judgment in Girnar-I case as well as opinion expressed by the Apex Court in paras (2) and (3) of the judgment in Gimar-II case, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Joginder Singh's case no more holds water and, therefore, cannot be relied on. The learned Counsel further contended that the issue about applicability of provisions of section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act to the acquisition proceedings under the MRTP Act having been referred by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in Girnar-I case, to the three Judges' Bench, which also referred the said issue to the five Judges' Bench where it is pending for decision, it is not open for this Court to place reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sant Joginder Singh's case at this stage. It was submitted that another issue involved in the present petition is whether section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been introduced in the Land Acquisition Act by amending Act 68 of 1984 is not applicable to the land acquisition proceedings under the MRTP Act at this stage when the reference on this subject is pending for consideration and decision before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court.