GIRNAR TRADERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2007-8-112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 27,2007

GIRNAR TRADERS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BOLANI ORES LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY PURAN SINGH KEWAL KRISHAN KRISHAN LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA SONI NARANDAS NAGJIBHAI PUKHRAJ M S VENKITANARAYANA IYER VS. NATHELLA SAMPATHU CHETTY:THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:THE STATE OF PUNJAB:D R KOHLI:THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERS OF HOWRAH VS. SHALIMAR WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. M V NARASIMHAN [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD MYSORE VS. P GOVINDAN [REFERRED TO]
BAJAYA VS. GOPIKABAI [REFERRED TO]
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION TOWN PLANNING TRUST VS. T M PETER:COCHIN TOWN PLANNING TRUST [REFERRED TO]
UJAGAR PRINTS II KWALITY SILK MILLS CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SANT JOGINDER SINGH KISHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. JAINUL ISLAM [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VASANTRAO [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE VS. HINDUSTAN CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

HARI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHHABILDAS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PAL VS. U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJTANU BHATTACHARYA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
NAVENDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
U P AWAS EWAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. A D M LAND ACQUISITION [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
SADHNA CHOURASIA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(MPH)-2010-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANDAS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
GASTEL INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
T. Venkatesh Reddy Aged About 48 Years S/o Late Thimmareddy R/o Deverchikkanahalli Village Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and T. Keshava Reddy Aged About 46 Years S/o Late Thimmareddy R/o Deverchikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore S VS. [LAWS(KAR)-2011-10-81] [REFERRED TO]
MR. RAJESH AGARWAL VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
PUKHRAJMAL SAGARMAL LUNKAD VS. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
GLOBE METAL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
MD. BAHALUDDIN SHEIKH, VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
N. MAHALINGAM & COMPANY VS. T. SANTHOSH KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVTAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-183] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. P RAMA KRISHNA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-370] [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND CHOWDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
AFZAL VS. CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
METALLURGICAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
KISHIN S. LOUNGANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-148] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALINGAM & COMPANY VS. SANTHOSH KUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-174] [REFERRED TO]
TANYA KHAN AFRIDI VS. JAMMU AND KASHMIR BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION [LAWS(J&K)-2019-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
JIBAN KUMAR GHOSH & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2009-6-73] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. RAJESH SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-207] [REFERRED TO]
KHADEEJA NARGEES VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-593] [REFERRED TO]
TERA CHINNAPA REDDY VS. GOVT. OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD. VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-2014-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(ORI)-2014-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
T.SHARATH VS. GOVT. OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT SHRIPAT GOTRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-298] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA SHANKAR JOSHI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL RANA BHOPI VS. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-161] [REFERRED TO 5]
SHANTARAM SHANKAR JAMSANDEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA MOHANLAL CHAUHAN VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
MEHTAB LAIQ AHMED SHAIKH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
ALI VS. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT [LAWS(KER)-2009-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI SHAKUNTLA THAKRAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-217] [REFERRED TO]
MADANBAI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-206] [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHAR SADASHIV JAGTAP AND ORS. VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-231] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARRAO RAMBHAU DABHADE VS. CORPORATION OF CITY OF AMRAWATI [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA RAMESHWARDAS GINDODIYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
SHOUKAT ALLABAKSH BAGWAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-282] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNUVASANT DEVELOPERS; A PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-92] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD MORESHWAR PATWARDHAN VS. SANGLI, MIRAJ & KUPWAD [LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-237] [REFERRED]
PRATAP TULARAM GHOGALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-160] [REFERRED TO 3,5,11,14,15,16 HARENDRA BHIKUBHAI ANDHYRU & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,W.]
VIJAYKUMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-122] [REFERRED TO [ 6 ]]
ABHAY ANANT CHOUGULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-83] [REFERRED TO]
HDFC BANK LTD., MUMBAI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(3), MUMBAI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
PITAMBER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-123] [REFERRED TO]
VANSADA AGRICULTURELS PVT. LTD. VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRAMSINH JAYSINGRAO GHATGE VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
BHOPAL VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-216] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL DATTATRAYA GIRME VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
VANITA PRAVIN GAIKWAD VS. PRAVIN PUNDLIK GAIKWAD [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-221] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BHARAT FURNISHING COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-182] [REFERRED TO]
SOW. DEVKIBAI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-207] [REFERRED TO]
MADHOOR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-214] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR HIRAMAN MOHURLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-57] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVRAM KONDAJI SATHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHAKTI VEDANTA BOOK TRUST [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-104] [REFERRED TO]
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
HASMUKHRAI V. MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
M/S DHINGRA JARDINE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-376] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RISOD VS. RAMESHCHANDRA SHANKARLAL SABU [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
POONA TIMBER MERCHANTS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-79] [REFERRED TO (PARA 13)]
MADHAO ATULCHANDRA BAPAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
ST JOSEPH CHURCH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-231] [REFERRED]
SHRICHAND GIRDHARILAL PUNJABI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GR [LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-163] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN K THIAGARAJAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
SATYABHAMABAI BHIMJI DAWKHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR HIRAMAN MOHURLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-215] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. SATYABHAMABAI BHIMAJI DAWKHER [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SADASHIV GANPAT AVHAD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-160] [REFERRED TO]
PERFECT MACHINE TOOLS CO LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
SARABJIT RICK SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARAM MAHADEV JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-211] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE VINAYAK BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-133] [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR HIRALAL MEHTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-153] [REFERRED TO]
MR.SIDDHARAM SHIVAPPA PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHPRASAD M PODDAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD V.BHATT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARLAL BABURAM GUPTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
BHEEMAPPA H. RADDI VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
BRABHABEN HARSHADRAY DESAI VS. STATE GOVERNMENT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI KURJIBHAI RADADIYA VS. SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2011-6-213] [REFERRED TO]
MARIYAM BEGUM ABDUL JALIL KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-439] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH R. SHAH VS. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANT VASUDEO PAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-239] [REFERRED TO]
B.JANAKIRAM VS. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-237] [REFERRED TO]
EKNATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-344] [REFERRED TO]
AMINABEE ABDUL WAHAB MALIKMALIK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-12-117] [REFERRED TO]
SHRISHAIL PARVATI SAHAKARI GRIHANIRMAN SANSTHA (REGD.) SOLAPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN MR. B.G. DHANALI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, MANTRALAYA MUMBAI 400032 [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL FILTERS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-4-180] [REFERRED TO]
ABID HUSSEN ABDULKARIM SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. GERARD PERIRA VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE XV(1), CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-177] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. JIVAT KEVALRAM IDNANI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-60] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH PRAKASH ROHRA & ANR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-108] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHABEN HARSHDRAY DESAI VS. STATE OF GOVERMENT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
APPASAHEB GURUSIDDHAPPA LAKSHETTI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-149] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE VINAYAK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-130] [REFERRED TO]
TOPKHANA DESH GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD VS. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-162] [REFERRED TO]
ROSARY MATRICULATION HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KASHINATH S/O PUNDLIK PATIL VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-327] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP YASHWANT ATRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-164] [REFERRED TO]
RABIYA RAJU BAGWAN VS. SAWANTWADI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-233] [REFERRED TO]
S. SIDHARTH VS. P. LALITHA KUMARI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-141] [REFERRED TO]
GANGUBAI MARUTI JADHAV(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS AND L.RS. VS. DATTATRAYA TUKARAM PHARANE(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND L.RS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ SINGHAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. P. Naolekar, J. - (1.) (for himself and on behalf of B. N. AGRAWAL, J.):- We have had the benefit of perusing the judgment prepared by learned brother P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. in Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003 titled M/s. Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Others, wherein learned brother has taken into consideration various decisions of this Court, including decisions delivered by 3-Judge Benches, and various aspects considered therein, and thought it proper to refer the question regarding interpretation and applicability of Section 11A introduced into the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act) by Amendment Act 68 of 1984 to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the MRTP Act) for consideration by a larger Bench. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Others, (2002) 7 SCC 657 and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 467, on interpretation of the provisions of the Acts under challenge, has held that the LA Act was incorporated in those statutes, that is, they were cases of legislation by incorporation and, therefore, the amendment brought about subsequently in the LA Act would not apply to the statutes in question. However, beneficial amendment of payment of compensation under the amended provisions of the LA Act was made applicable and the owner of the land was held to be entitled to the beneficial payment of compensation. It appears, it was so held to save the Acts from the vice of arbitrary and hostile discrimination. There does not appear to be any justifiable reason for not applying this principle so far as it relates to the acquisition of land. If the land is not acquired within the stipulated time, then the whole proceedings in acquisition comes to an end, and thereby the owner of the land would be entitled to retain his land which appears to be the superior right than the owners right to get the compensation for acquisition of his land. A 2-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another v. Sant Joginder Singh Kishan Singh and Others, (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 475 has held that Section 11A of the LA Act is a procedural provision and does not stand on the same footing as Section 23 of the LA Act. We find it difficult to subscribe to the view taken. Procedure is a mode in which the successive steps in litigation are taken. Section 11A not only provides a period in which the land acquisition proceedings are to be completed but also provides for consequences, namely, that if no award is made within the time stipulated, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. Lapsing of the acquisition of the land results in owner of the land retaining ownership right in the property and according to us it is a substantive right accrued to the owner of the land, and that in view thereof we feel Section 11A of the LA Act is part of the law which creates and defines right, not adjective law which defines method of enforcing rights. It is a law that creates, defines and regulates the right and powers of the party. For this and the other reasons assigned by our learned brother, we are in agreement with him that the question involved requires consideration by a larger Bench and, accordingly, we agree with the reasons recorded by my learned brother for referring the question to a larger Bench. However, on consideration of the erudite judgment prepared by our esteemed and learned brother Balasubramanyan, J., regretfully we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree to the decision arrived at by him on interpretation of Section 127 of the MRTP Act and also reference of the case to a larger Bench. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a special provision and would be attracted in the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned in the Section itself. The Section provides a procedure for the land owner to get his land de-reserved if steps are not taken by the State Government within the stipulated period and the relief which the owner of the land is entitled to is also provided therein. The steps to be taken for acquisition of land as provided under Section 127 of the MRTP Act have to be taken into consideration keeping in mind the time lag between the period the land is brought under reservation and inaction on the part of the State to acquire it. Section 127 of the MRTP Act is a unique provision providing remedial measure to the owner of the land whose land is under the planning scheme for a long period of time, which would be interpreted in the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It does not have any universal application and, therefore, the applicability thereof would depend on the facts of each case. S.L.P.(C) No.11446 of 2005 titled M/s. S.P. Building Corporation and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, is required to be decided by this Bench only and, therefore, we propose to decide it as follows:
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) The brief facts necessary for deciding the questions raised in this appeal are that appellant No.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is the owner of an immovable property, i.e. a piece of land, bearing City Survey No.18/738, admeasuring about 5387.35 sq.yds. situated at Carmichael Road, Malabar Hill Division, Mumbai-400026.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.