Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) A two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 8 SCC 505 had considered the question whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Land Acquisition Act or the Central Act) as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act 68 of 1984), can be read into the provisions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the MRTP Act) for acquisition of land thereunder. The Bench was of the opinion that the observations made by another Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Joginder Singh, (1995) Suppl. SCC 475 did not enunciate the correct law by answering the said question in the negative and, thus, requires reconsideration by a larger Bench. While recording variety of reasons for making a reference to the larger Bench the learned Judges in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Order observed as under: 20. We, therefore, see no good reason as to why the provisions introduced in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Central Act 68 of 1984 should not be read into an acquisition under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act, to the extent not precluded by the MRTP Act, 1966. Section 11A being one such section, it may have to be applied to the acquisition under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act. 21. For these reasons, in our considered view, the decision in Sant Joginder Singh requires reconsideration by a larger Bench.
(3.) This appeal came up for hearing before a larger Bench consisting of three learned Judges along with other matters in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 555 (hereinafter referred to as Girnar Traders-II). In those appeals, inter alia, arguments were addressed as to the interpretation of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act as well as reading the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, including Section 11A, into the provisions of the MRTP Act as legislation by reference. There was some divergence of opinion between the learned Judges hearing that matter. P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. (as he then was) expressed an opinion that both the questions; in regard to interpretation of Sections 126 and 127 of the MRTP Act as well as incorporation of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act into that Act should be referred for consideration to a larger Bench. Expressing the majority view, B.N. Agrawal and P.P. Naolekar, JJ. (as they then were) agreed that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the law which creates and defines rights and is not an adjective law which defines method of enforcing rights. For this and other reasons assigned by P.K. Balasubramanyan, J., they agreed that the question involved required consideration by a larger Bench. However, in para 3 of the majority judgment, they regretfully declined to make reference on interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act to a larger Bench and decided the matter in that regard on merits. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court under appeal, the minority view expressed by Balasubramanyan, J. is as under: 123. I would, therefore, hold that there has been sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 127 of the MRTP Act by the authority under the Act by the acquisition initiated against the appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11446 of 2005 and the reservation in respect of the land involved therein does not lapse by the operation of Section 127 of the Act. But since on the main question in agreement with my learned Brothers I have referred the matter for decision by a Constitution Bench, I would not pass any final orders in this appeal merely based on my conclusion on the aspect relating to Section 127 of the MRTP Act. The said question also would stand referred to the larger Bench. 124. I therefore refer these appeals to a larger Bench for decision. It is for the larger Bench to consider whether it would not be appropriate to hear the various States also on this question considering the impact of a decision on the relevant questions. The papers be placed before the Honble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. ;