# 3 S.C.R. 1 GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-01-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003
- **Bench:** 5.H. Kapadia, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, K.5. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter K~Mar, Anil R. Dave
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/3-s-c-r-1-girnar-traders-v-state-of-maharashtra-and-ors-27539
- **Pages:** 133

## Headnote

A
B
Maharash(ra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 C
(MRTP Act):
Purpose of - Held: The principal object of the MRTP Act
is planned development of the State of Maharashtra by
preparing development plans for regions and town planning 0
schemes and constitution of various authorities to achieve the
said purpose - It includes the function of acquisition of land
but for a very limited purpose - Acquisition of land takes
place only where the land is reserved, designated or required
for eomplete qevelopment in the view of the Planning,
D~ve/Qpment pr Appropriate Authority as the case may be.
E
Scheme 1.mcfer the Act ...., Wh~ther the Act is a selfcontained Code - Held, Yes - MRTP Act is ~n Act which
completely provides for various steps in relation to execution
of its object, constitution of various authorities to implement F
the underlying scheme of planned development, machinery
for interested persons to raise their claims for adjudication
under the provisions of the Act or at best to an authority
referred to in the Act - Thus, the MRTP Act is a complete code
in itself.
G
Chapter VII - Whether all the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, as amended by Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 [Act 68 of 1984], with particular
1
H .
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A reference on s. 11 A can be read into the provisions of the
MRTP Act on the principle of either legislation by reference
or legislation by incorporation - Held: All the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act introduced by later amendments would
not, per se, become applicable and be deemed to be part and
B parcel of the MRTP Act - The intent of the legislature to make
the MRTP Act a self-contained Code with definite reference
to required provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is clear -
Unambiguous language of the provisions of the MRTP Act
and the legislative intent clearly mandates that it is a case of
c legislation by incorporation in contradistinction to legislation
by reference -
Nonetheless, some of the amended
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable to
the MRTP Act or read as a part thereof, with reference to the
doctrine of pith and substance and harmonious application
0
of the two statutes - The provisions introduced in the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent
of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse
to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read
into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of Chapter VII
of the MRTP Act but with a specific exception that the
E provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as they provide
different time frames and consequences of default thereof
including lapsing of acquisition proceedings cannot be read
into the MRTP Act - S. 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act being
one of such provisions cannot be applied to acquisitions
F under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act - Reading of s. 11 A of the
Land Acquisition Act into Chapter VII of the MRTP Act will
rendE1r the substantive provisions of the MRTP Act ineffective,
unworkable and may frustrate its object materially - Land
G
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.11A.
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 - Enactment of- Purpose -
Scheme under the Act - Discussed - Held: The primary
object of the Act is acquisition of land for a public purpose
which may be 'planned development' or even otherwise - The
H Act itself is a self contained code within the framework of its
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
3
AND ORS.
limited purpose, i.e. acquisition of land - It provides for A
complete machinery for acquisition of land including the
process of execution, payment of compensation as well as
legal remedies in case of any grievances.
Doctrines:
B
Doctrine of legislation by reference - Meaning and
applicability of - Held: When there is general reference in the
Act in question to some earlier Act but there is no specific
mention of the provisions of the former Act, then it is clearly
considered as legislation by reference

## Text

_Characters 0–39,967 of 273,155. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39967 for what follows._

[2011) 3 S.C.R. 1
GIRNAR TRADERS
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003)
JANUARY 11, 2011
·. -
[5.H. KAPADIA, CJI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER
K~MAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
A
B
Maharash(ra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 C
(MRTP Act):
Purpose of - Held: The principal object of the MRTP Act
is planned development of the State of Maharashtra by
preparing development plans for regions and town planning 0
schemes and constitution of various authorities to achieve the
said purpose - It includes the function of acquisition of land
but for a very limited purpose - Acquisition of land takes
place only where the land is reserved, designated or required
for eomplete qevelopment in the view of the Planning,
D~ve/Qpment pr Appropriate Authority as the case may be.
E
Scheme 1.mcfer the Act ...., Wh~ther the Act is a selfcontained Code - Held, Yes - MRTP Act is ~n Act which
completely provides for various steps in relation to execution
of its object, constitution of various authorities to implement F
the underlying scheme of planned development, machinery
for interested persons to raise their claims for adjudication
under the provisions of the Act or at best to an authority
referred to in the Act - Thus, the MRTP Act is a complete code
in itself.
G
Chapter VII - Whether all the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, as amended by Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 [Act 68 of 1984], with particular
1
H .
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A reference on s. 11 A can be read into the provisions of the
MRTP Act on the principle of either legislation by reference
or legislation by incorporation - Held: All the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act introduced by later amendments would
not, per se, become applicable and be deemed to be part and
B parcel of the MRTP Act - The intent of the legislature to make
the MRTP Act a self-contained Code with definite reference
to required provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is clear -
Unambiguous language of the provisions of the MRTP Act
and the legislative intent clearly mandates that it is a case of
c legislation by incorporation in contradistinction to legislation
by reference -
Nonetheless, some of the amended
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable to
the MRTP Act or read as a part thereof, with reference to the
doctrine of pith and substance and harmonious application
0
of the two statutes - The provisions introduced in the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act 68 of 1984, limited to the extent
of acquisition of land, payment of compensation and recourse
to legal remedies provided under the said Act, can be read
into an acquisition controlled by the provisions of Chapter VII
of the MRTP Act but with a specific exception that the
E provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in so far as they provide
different time frames and consequences of default thereof
including lapsing of acquisition proceedings cannot be read
into the MRTP Act - S. 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act being
one of such provisions cannot be applied to acquisitions
F under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act - Reading of s. 11 A of the
Land Acquisition Act into Chapter VII of the MRTP Act will
rendE1r the substantive provisions of the MRTP Act ineffective,
unworkable and may frustrate its object materially - Land
G
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.11A.
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 - Enactment of- Purpose -
Scheme under the Act - Discussed - Held: The primary
object of the Act is acquisition of land for a public purpose
which may be 'planned development' or even otherwise - The
H Act itself is a self contained code within the framework of its
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
3
AND ORS.
limited purpose, i.e. acquisition of land - It provides for A
complete machinery for acquisition of land including the
process of execution, payment of compensation as well as
legal remedies in case of any grievances.
Doctrines:
B
Doctrine of legislation by reference - Meaning and
applicability of - Held: When there is general reference in the
Act in question to some earlier Act but there is no specific
mention of the provisions of the former Act, then it is clearly
considered as legislation by reference - In the case of C
legislation by reference, the amending laws of the former Act
would normally become applicable to the later Act.
Doctrine of legislation by incorporation - Meaning and
applicability of - Held: When the provisions of an Act are D
specifically referred and incorporated in the later statute, then
those provisions alone are applicable and the amending
provisions of the former Act would not become part of the later
Act -
This principle is generally called legislation by
incorporation.
Doctrine of pith and substance and doctrine of incidental
encroachment - Applicability of - Discussed - Held: Once it
E
is found that in pith and substance, an Act is a law on a
permitted field then any incidental encroachment, even on a
forbidden field, does not affect the competence of the
F
legislature to enact that law - An incidental cause cannot
override the primary cause.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Referential legislation as a tool of interpretative G
application - Held: The Court, while applying referential
legislation as a tool of interpretative application, should keep
in mind that such interpretation should not, in any way, defeat
the object and essence of prin::ipal legislation -
The
H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 3 S.C.R.
A likelihood of any interference with the scheme under the
principal Act would tilt against accepting such an
interpretation.
Self-contained code - Held: Should be distinguished
8
from supplemental law.
Legislation - Legislation by reference - Held: The rule
of legislation by reference is bound to have exceptions - It
cannot be stated as an absolute proposition of law that
wherever legislation by reference exists, subsequent
C amendments to the earlier law shall stand implanted into the
later law without analyzing the impact of such incorporation
on the object and effectuality of the later law - The later law
being the principal law, its object, legislative intent and
effective implementation shall always be of paramount
D consideration while determining the compatibility of the
amended prior law with the later law as on relevant date.
Maxims - maxim ut res magis va/eat quam pereat -
Held: A statute should be construed so as to make it effective
E and operative - Interpretation of Statutes.
The questions referred for consideration of this
Constitution Bench were: 1) whether the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP) is a selfcontained Code or not, if so, to what effect and 2)
F whether, in any event, all the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, as amended by Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 [Act 68 of 1984) with particular
reference on Section 11A can be read into the provisions
of the MRTP Act on the principle of either legislation by
G reference or legislation by incorporation.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD:1.1. The Maharashtra Regional & Town
Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) is a code in itself. It is a
H
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
5
AND ORS.
legislation which has the paramount purpose only of A
planning; and acquisition of land is merely incidental, that
too for a very limited purpose. Acquisition of land takes
place only where the land is reserved, designated or
required for complete development in the view of the
Planning, Development or Appropriate Authority. A
B
complete mechanism of planning, implementation,
adjudicatory process in that regard as well as the
methodology adopted for acquiring lands, in its limited
sense, inclusive of change in the use, for public purpose,
for which the land is required have been specifically C
provided under the MRTP Act. The State Act is hardly
dependent upon the Land Acquisition Act except to the
limited extent of completing the process of determining.
compensation, other than the compensation determinable
by the designated Arbitrator or Tribunal. This being the D
scheme of the MRTP Act, mere reference to some of the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would not take
away the substantive scheme of the State Act which is a
complete code in itself. [Para 21) [69-C-E-G; 70-H; 71~A]
1.2. The Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was enacted as
E
it was considered expedient to amend the law for
acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for
companies and, particularly, for payment and
determination of the amount of compensation to be paid
on account of such acquisition. From the objects and
F
reasons of the Land Acquisition Act, it is clear that the
primary object of this Act is acquisition of land for a
public purpose which may be 'planned development' or
even otherwise. In fact the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act do not deal with the concept of G
development as is intended under the specific statutes
like MRTP Act, Delhi Development Act, 1957, Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 etc. The primary
purpose of the Land Acquisition Act is to acquire land for
public purpose and for companies as well as to award
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A compensation to the owners/interested persons in
accordance with the provisions of this Act. It is not an
Act dealing in extenso or otherwise with development
and planning. The scheme of this Act is very simple. The
Land Acquisition Act itself is a self contained code within
B the framework of its limited purpose, i.e. acquisition of
land. It provides for complete machinery for acquisition
of land including the process of execution, payment of
compensation as well as legal remedies in case of any
grievances. [Paras 22, 24 and 25] [71-B; 72-F-G; 74-E; 75C D]
1.3. The MRTP Act and the Land Acquisition Act are
two different statutes operating in different fields, the
provisions of which are required to be utilized by the
concerned authorities for the object sought to be
D achieved under the respective Acts. The schemes under
the two Acts are distinct and different. Scheme under the
State Act can be implemented with recourse to the
provisions of the Central Act which have been
specifically stated therein. At the same time where there
:::
are specific provisions under the State Act the
corresponding provisions of the Central Act will not
apply. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating
to the acquisition of land alone, for which there are no
specific provisions under the State Act, would be
F applicable to the acquisition under the State Act. [Para
27] [79-B-D]
(
1.4. For an Act to be a 'self contained code', it is
required to be shown that it is a complete legislation for
G the purpose for which it is enacted. The provisions of the
MRTP Act relate to preparation, submission and sanction
of approval of different plans by the concerned
authorities which are aimed at achieving the object of
planned development in contradistinction to haphazard
development. An owner/person interested in the land and
H
GIRNAR TRADERS v, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
7
AND ORS.
who wishes to object to the plans at the appropriate stage
A
a self-contained adjudicatory machinery has been spelt
out in the MRTP Act. Even the remedy of appeal is
available under the MRTP Ac~ with a complete Chapter
being devoted to acquisition of land for the planned
development. Providing adjudicatory mechanism is one
B
of the most important facets of deciding wt:ether a
particular statute is a 'complete code' in itself or not. [Para
28] (79-F-H]
1.5. If complete machinery or mechanism is not
provided under an Act to ensure effective execution of the
C
functions assigned therein with due protection of the
rights of the interested persons within the framework of
law, it may not be possible for the Court to hold that such
a statute is a self-contained code. [Para 33] [84-E]
1.6. It may not be possible to state parameters of
universal application which could determine with
precision as to whether an Act is a self-contained code
D
or not. It is difficult and, in fact, may not even be
permissible to formulate any hard and fast rule which
E
could uniformly be applied to all statutes for such
determination. 'Complete' adds a degree of certainty to
the code. It has to be a compilation of provisions which
would comprehensively deal with various aspects of the
purpose sought to be achieved by that law and its
F
dependence on other legislations is either absent or at
best is minimal. The provisions of the enactment in
question should provide for a complete machinery to deal
with various problems that may arise during its execution.
Sufficient powers should be vested in the authority/forum G
created under the Act to ensure effectual and complete
implementation of the Act. There should be complete and
coherent scheme of the statutory provisions for
attainment of the object and· purpose of the Act. It
essenti~lly should also provide for adjudicatory scheme
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 3 S.C.R.
A to deal with grievances/claims of the persons affected by
enforcement of the provisions of the Act, preferably,
including an appellate forum within the framework of the
Act. In other words, the Act in itself should be a panacea
to all facets arising from the implementation of the Act
B itself. [Para 34, 35] [84-F; 85-C-F]
1.7. The principal object of MRTP Act is planned
development of the State of Maharashtra by preparing
development plans for regions and town planning
schemes and constitution of various authorities to
C achieve the said purpose. Incidentally, it includes the
function of acquisition of land but for a very limited
purpose. It is not expected of the authorities to apply to
the Government for a general acquisition but the
acquisition has to be of the land which is required,
D reserved or designated under any development plan.
E
Thus, it is an acquisition of a very limited connotation.
The MRTP Act specifies all the authorities, their respective
powers and functions for attaining the object of the Act.
[Para 36) [85-G; 86-A-B]
1.8. The complete scheme has been provided under
the MRTP Act for attaining the object of planned
development.
Various
provisions of the
Act
comprehensively prescribe what and how the steps are
F required to be taken by the authorities under the Act, right
from the stage of preparation of draft development plan
to its finalization as well as preparation and finalization
of all regional and town planning schemes. The MRTP
Act clearly spells out as to how these schemes are to be
implemented and by whom. Right of the interested person
G to raise objections, pre-finalization of the respective
plans, is specifically provided. The authority before whom
such objections are to be raised and who is to be granted
hearing and by whom is clearly spelt out. There is no
aspect which is not dealt with or provided for under the
H
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
9
AND ORS.
provisions of the State Act right from the initia' stage to
A
its final execution. Besides providing right of objection
to the owner of the land or property, which fall within the
development plan, the State Act also provides machinery
for finalization and determination of disputes between the
authorities and private parties. Furthermore, a person is
B
entitled to raise all disputes including the dispute of
ownership. The Arbitrator nominated under the MRTP Act
has the jurisdiction to decide all such matters. The
jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is a limited one like estimation ·
and payment of compensation in relation to plots in c
distinction to lands as defined under the Act within the
four corners of the provisions of Sections 72 to 74 of the
MRTP Act with reference to Section 97 of the State Act.
Some of his decisions are final, while on most of other
decisions, an appeal lies to the Tribunal. [Para 37) [86-CD
H]
1.9. The MRTP Act besides being a code in itself has
one pre-dominant purpose, i.e., planned development.
Other matters are incidental and, therefore, should be
construed to achieve that pre-dominant object. All the
E
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied
to the MRTP Act. The provisions of the MRTP Act have
to be implemented in their own field. As far as the
provisions relating to preparation, approval and
execution of the development plans are concerned, there
F
is hardly any dependency of the State Act on the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It may be
necessary, sometimes, to acquire land which primarily
would be for the purpose of planned development as
contemplated under the MRTP Act. Some of the G
provisions of the State Act have specifically referred to
some of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act but
for the limited purpose of acquiring land. Thus, the
purpose of such reference is, obviously, to take aid of the
provisions of the Central Act only for the purpose of H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A acquiring a land in accordance w.ith law stated therein
rather than letting any provision of the Central Act hamper
or obstruct the principal object of the State Act, i.e.
execution of the planned development. The MRTP Act is
a self-contained code and does not lose its colour or
a content of being a self-contained code merely because
it makes a reference to some of the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act for acquisition of land for the purpose of
MRTP Act and determination of compensation in that
behalf. The referred provisions of the Land Acquisition
c Act may only be taken recourse to that limited extent,
withiil the extensive framework and for the purpose of
MRTP Act. [Para 38] [87-A-F]
1.10. MRTP Act is an Act which completely provides
for various steps in relation to execution of its object,
D constitution of various authorities to implement the
underlying scheme of planned development, machinery
for interested persons to raise their claims for
adjudication under the provisions of this Act or at best·
to an authority referred to in the Act. Thus, the MRTP Act
E is a complete code in itself. [Para 39] [87-G-H; 88-A]
1.11. Once it is held that MRTP Act is a self-contained
code, application of either of the doctrines, i.e. 'legislation
by reference' or 'legislation by incorporation', would lose
F their significance particularly when the two Acts can coexist and operate without conflict. However, since this
aspect was argued by the parties at great length, the
merit or otherwise of this contention is being discussed
as an alternative plea. [Para 40, 41] [88-C-D]
G
1.12. When there is general reference in the Act in
question to some earlier Act but there is no specific .
mention of the provisions of the former Act, then it Is
clearly considered as legislation by reference. In the case
of legislation by reference, the amending laws of the
H former Act would normally become applicable to the later
,
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
11
AND ORS.
.
.
Act; b'ut, when the provisions of an Act are specifically A
referred and incorporated in the later statute, then those
provisions atone are applicable and the amending
provisions of the former Act would not become part of
the tater Act. This principle is generally called legislation
by incorporation. General reference, ordinarily, will imply
B
exclusion of specific reference and this is precisely the
fine line of distinction between these two doctrines. Both
are referential legislations, one merely by way of reference
and the other by incorporation. It, normally, will depend
on the language used in the later law and other relevant c
considerations. While the principle of legislation by
incorporation has well defined exceptions, the law
enunciated as of now provides for no exceptions to the
principle of legislation by reference. Furthermore, despite
strict application of doctrine of incorporation, it may still
0
not operate in certain legislations and such legislation
may fall within one of the stated exceptions. [Para 41] [88E-H; 89-A]
1.13. With the development of law, the legislature has
adopted the common practice of referring to the
E
provisions of the existing statute while enacting new
laws. Reference to an earlier law in the later law could be
a simple reference of provisions of earlier statute or a
specific reference where the earlier law is made an integral
part of the new law, i.e., by incorporation. In the case of F
legislation by reference, it is fictionally made a part of the
later law. All amendments to the former law, though made
subsequent to the enactment of the later law, would ipso
facto apply and one finds mention of this particular
aspect in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In
contrast to such simple reference, legal incidents of
legislation by incorporation is that it becomes part of the
existing law which implies bodily lifting provisions of one
enactment and making them part of another and in such
cases subsequent amendments in the incorporated Act
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A could not be treated as part of the incorporating Act. -
Ultimately, it is the expression and/or the language used
in the new law with reference to the existing law that
would determine as to under what class of referential
legislation it falls. In some of the statutes, expressions like
B "shall for that purpose be deemed to form part of this Act
· i,n the same manner as if they were enacted in the body
thereof' or "the provisions of Section of the said Act (set
out in the Schedule) shall apply as if they were herein reenacted" are typical examples of legislation by
c incorporation. Another glaring example of incorporation
one finds in the provision of Bombay Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949 where Section 284N uses the
expression "the LA Act ... shall for that purpose be
deemed to form part of this chapter as if enacted in the
0 body hereof". Another feature of legislation by
incorporation is that the language is explicit and positive.
Self-contained enactment should be clearly distinguished
from supplemental law. When the later_ law depends on
the former law for procedural/ substantive provisions or
E is to draw its strength from the provisions of the former
Act, the later Act is termed as the supplemental to the
former law. MRTP Act and the Land Acquisition Act are
Acts which operate in different fields. One is a Central Act
while the other is a State Act. They derive their source
from different entries in the constitutional lists. [Para 42]
F [89-E-H; 90-A-F]
1.14. The legislative intent appears to make the MRTP
Act a self-contained code and does not generally advert
to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for
G execution of planned development. The default, its
consequences and remedies have been specifically
provided for under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and in
that regard there is apparentfy no need to refer to the
default clause contained in Section 11A of the Land
H Acquisition Act. Time limitations and consequences of
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
13
AND ORS.
their default are specifically provided for in the MRTP Act A
by the Legislature and, therefore, it will not be appropriate
to read into these provisions something which has not
been stated by the Legislature on the inference that time
limitations or bars created under the Land Acquisition Act
would essentially have to be read as part of the MRTP Act.
B
Wherever the State Legislature considered it appropriate,
it has made specific reference to a particular provision of
the Land Acquisition Act and for attainment of a particular
purpose. There is no general reference to the Land.
Acquisition Act in any of the provisions of the MRTP Act c .
to say that the provisions of the former Act, in their
entirety, will be applicable to all kind of proceedings and
purposes under the later Act. [Paras 46, 47) [94-A-C; 95H; 96-A]
1.15. Another aspect which would support the view D
that it is legislation by incorporation and there is every
legislative intent to exclude legislation by reference is that
wherever there was a general reference to the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act like Section 127 of the MRTP
Act, the same stands excluded/deleted by amendment of E
2009. Furthermore, the entire Land Acquisition Act cannot
be made applicable to proceedings under the MRTP Act
where, unlike Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings·
commence and consequences take place the. moment
the land is designated or reserved under a plan, draft plan
F
or even scheme. On the contrary, the proceedings under
th~ Land Acquisition Act start when the notification un·der
S~ction 4 of that Act is issued. This exclusion is of
paramount significance as the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act relating acquisition would not come into G
play till the issuance of the notification under Section 4
thereof while that is not true under the MRTP Act. If the ·
Legislature intended to apply the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act generally and wanted to make a general
reference and implementation of those provisions, it H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A could have said that the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act would be applicable to the MRTP Act.
Such expression is conspicuous by its very absence.
[Para 48] [96-8-F]
8
1.16. Besides the MRTP Act being a self-contained
Code, these are enactments which, apparently, are ,
dissimilar in their content and application. The provisions
of Section 127 of the MRTP Act were amended long after
the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act by Central
Act 68 of 1984. The Legislature was fully aware of the
C entire matter including hardship of the land owners. The
statement of objects and reasons for amendment of
Section 127 of the MRTP Act conveys intent antipodal to
that sought to be put forward by the appellants, that
Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act would be
D attracted. Section 11 A was in existence at the time of
amendment in 2009 of the MRTP Act and if it was
intended to be applied to the MRTP Act there was hardly
any need to amend Section 127 of the MRTP Act in the
manner in which it was done. If the intention of the
E legislature was to permit lapsing of acquisition, in that
event provisions of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition
Act, per se, would have achieved the purpose. The 2009
amendment to the State Act restricted even lapsing of the
reservation or designation only if there was default in
F compliance to the provisions of Section 126(2) and 126(4)
of the MRTP Act. General reference to acquisition under
the Land Acquisition Act was deleted as it was never
intended to be read as a part of the State Act. Thus, the
State Legislature in its wisdom restricted the
G consequences only to lapsing of reservation. [Para 49]
[96-G-H; 97-A-C]
1.17. Normally, when it is by reference or citation, the
amendment to the earlier law is accepted to be applicable
H to the later law while in the case of incorporation, the
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
15
. AND ORS.
subsequent amendments to the earlier law are irrelevant
A
for application to the subsequent law unless it falls in the
exceptions stated by this Court in M. V. Narasimhan's
case. Even where there is legislation by reference, the
Court needs to apply its mind as to what effect the
subsequent amendments to the earlier law would have
B
on the application of the later law. The objective of all
these principles of interpretation and their application is
to ensure that both the Acts operate in harmony and
object of the principal statute is not defeated by such
incorporation. [Para 58] [103-C-E]
c
1.18. In the case in hand, it is clear that both these
Acts are self-contained codes within themselves. The
State Legislature while enacting the MRTP Act has
referred to the specific sections of the Land Acquisition
Act in the provisions of the State Act. None of the D
sections require application of the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act generally or mutatis mutandis. On the
contrary, there is a specific reference to certain sections
and/or contentllanguage of the section of the Land
Acquisition Act in the provisions of the MRTP Act. Section
113A of the State Act refers to acquisition of land under
E
the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose under Section
113(3A) which in turn refers to the complexity and
magnitude of the work involved in developing any area
as a site for new town. Section 116 of the State Act refers
F
to the power which shall vest in a Developing Authority,
constituted under Section 113(2) of the MRTP Act, for
acquisition by agreement or under the Land Acquisition
Act, as provided in Chapter VII of the MRTP Act. Section
125 of the State Act provides that any land which is G
required, reserved or designated in a regional plan or a
scheme for a public purpose, which shall be deemed to
be land needed for a public purpose within the meaning
of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 126(1 )(b) provides for
payment of an amount equivalent to the value of lessor's
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A interest to be determined by the authorities on the basis
of the principles laid down in the Land Acquisition Act.
Thus, the reference to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act is only for the purpose of adopting the
principles stated therein for a very limited purpose. In
8 terms of Section 126(1 )(c) of the MRTP Act, the application
to the State Government has to be made for acquiring
such land under the Land Acquisition Act. Such land
refers to the lands which are required only under the
provisions of the MRTP Act. Section 1 :?6(2) refers to
C Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act only for the
purpose of format in which the declaration has to be
made. In terms of Section 126(3), on publication of the
declaration, the Collector shall proceed to take order for
acquisition of the land under the State Act, i.e. for the
0 purpose of acquisition of land; the procedure adopted
under the Land Acquisition Act shall be adopted by the
Collector and nothing more. The afore-referred
provisions of the State Act clearly frame a scheme for
planned development with limited incorporation of some
of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The
E provisions of the State Act were amended last in point of
time and, therefore, the State Legislature was aware of
the relevant existing laws including Section 11 A of the
Land Acquisition Act. The intent of the legislature to
exclude the application of Section 11A clearly emerges
F from the fact that while amending Section 127 of the
MRTP Act, it made no reference, generally or specifically,
to the said provision rather it deleted reference to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act from the
unamended provisions of Section 127. Reference to
G Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act in the State Act,
under Section 128(3) of the State Act, is again relatable
to the acquisition proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, as under Section 83 of the State Act, the
land could vest in the Planning Authority even at the
H threshold and it is vesting of a different kind than j
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
17
AND ORS.
I
contemplated under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
A
Act. The purpose and intent of Section 129 of the MRTP
Act is akin to the provisions of Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act.and from linguistic point of view, there is
similarity in the two Sections but still the State Act has
provided for· a complete scheme with regard to B
possession and compensation payable to the owner of
the land in cases of urgency. Thus, it is clear that there
is no general reference to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act and they shall not apply as such or even
mutatis mutandis to the MRTP Act. On the contrary, c
reference to the Central Act, wherever is made in the State
Act, is specific and for a definite purpose.. [Para 59] (104E-H; 105-A-H; 106-A-C]
1.19. The acquisition proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act commence only when a notification under D
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued. Section
5A of the Central Act makes it incumbent upon the
authorities to invite objections and decide the same
before issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act. All these proceedings have specifically
E
·been given a go-by under the MRTP Act,. where
notification is to be issued under Section 126(2) in the
manner provided under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act.· Specific reference to various sections of the Land
Acquisition Act in the MRTP Act necessarily implies .F
exclusion of the provisions not specifically mentioned
therein. Acquisition proceedings under the MRTP Act are
commenced by issuance of a declaration under Section
126(2) and then the procedure prescribed under the Land
Acquisition Act is followed upto passing of award under G
Section 11 of that Act. Further, determination of
compensation will again depend upon the principles
stated in Sections 23 and 24 of .the Land Acquisition Act
but subject to Sections 128(2) and 129(1) of the MRTP Act.
Statutory benefits accrued under Sections 23(1A), 23(2)
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 3 S.C.R.
A and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act would be applicable
as held by this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
Vesting, unlike Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act
which operates only after the award is made and
compensation is given, whereas under the MRTP Act it
B may operate even at the initial stages before making of
an award, for example, under Sections 126(1)(c) and e3.
While referring to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
the State Legislature has not adopted, specifically or
otherwise, the period mentioned in proviso to Section 6(1)
C of the Land Acquisition Act. On the cor.~rary, different time
frames have been postulated under different provisions
of the MRTP Act. If those limitations of time are not
adhered to by the concerned authorities, the
consequences have also been provided therefor. From
D the stage of initiation of steps for preparation of draft
plans to the finalization of the scheme, it takes
considerable time. Furthermore, its implementation at the
ground level, takes still much more time. If this entire
planned development which is a massive project is
E permitted to lapse on the application of Section 11 A of
the Central Act, it will have the effect of rendering every
project of planned development frustrated. It can hardly
be an argument that the Government can always issue
fresh declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Land
F Acquisition Act and take further proceedings.
Recommencement of acquisition proceedings at different
levels of the hierarchy of the State and Planning Authority
itself takes considerable time and, thus, it will be difficult
to achieve the target of planned development. This
G clearly demonstrates that all the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act introduced by later amendments would
not, per se, become applicable and be deemed to be part
and parcel of the MRTP Act. The intent of the legislature
to make the State Act a self-contained Code with definite
reference to required provisions of the Land Acquisition
H Act is clear. [Para 60) [106-G-H; 107-A-H; 108-A-B]
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
19
AND ORS.
1.20. Besides this, if the provisions of Section 11A of A
the Land Acquisition Act are appliad or deemed to be
incorporated by application of any doctrine of law into the
provisions of MRTP Act, it will have the effect of
destroying the statutory rights available to the State
Government and/or the Planning Authority. For instance,
B
proviso to Section 126(2) of the State Act provides tliat
where a .declaration in the manner provided in Section 6
of the !:.and Acquisition Act in respect of the said land is
not made within one year from the date of publication of
draft regional plan, thereafter no such declaration stiall c
·be made. Section 126(4) makes an exception to the
consequences stated in proviso to Section 126(2) that the
State Government, notwithstanding those provisions, can
make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land under the
Land Acquisition Act. However, the market va!Ue of the
D
land shall be the market value at the date of declaration
in the Official Gazette made for acquiring such land
afresh. In other words, the rest of the machinery provided
under the Act would not operate after the prescribed
period. However, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act,
if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any
E
purpose specified is not acquired by agreement within 10
years from the date on which final regional plan or final
development plan comes into force or if a declaration
under sub-sections (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP .
Act is not published in the Official Gazette within such
F
period, the owner or any person interested in the land
may serve notice upon such authority to that effect and
if within 12 months from the date of service of such
notice, the land is not acquired or no steps, as aforesaid,
are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation,
G
allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed
and the land would become available to the owner for the
purposes of development. The defaults, their
consequences' and even exceptions thereto have been ·
specifically stated in the State Act. For a period of 11
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 3 S.C.R.
A years, the land would remain under reservation or
designation, as the case may be, in terms of Section 127
of the MRTP Act(1 O years + notice period). However, if the
provisions of Section 11 A of the Central Act were
permitted to punctuate a scheme of the State Act and the
B award is not made within two years from the date of
declaration under Section 6 of the Central Act, the
acquisition proceedings will lapse which will frustrate the
rights of the State as well as the scheme contemplated
under Section 126 as well as Section 127 of the State Act
c and that would not be permissible in law. This f>eing
legislation by incorporation, the general reference to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall stand
excluded. [Para 61] [108-0-H; 109-A-E]
1.21. Section 126(2) of the State Act refers to the
D manner of declaration as contemplated under Section 6
of the Land Acquisition Act but the legislature
intentionally avoided making any reference to other
features contained in Section 6 of the Central Act as well
as the time frame prescribed under that Act. On the
E contrary, proviso to Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act spells
out its own time frame whereafter such declaration
cannot be made subject to the provisions of Section
126(4). The unamended provisions of Section 127 of the
State Act though refer to the acquisition under Land
F Acquisition Act but without making any reference to the
time frame prescribed under the said Act. In this Section
also, the specific time frame and the consequences of
default thereof have been stated. Sections 128 and 129
of the MRTP Act relate to acquiring land for the purpose
G other than for which it is designated in any plan or
scheme and taking of possession of land in cases of
urgency respectively. The Court cannot lose sight of one
very important fact that the MRTP Act is an Act relating
to planned development and acquisition is an incidental
H aspect thereof. Planned development is quite different
GIRNAR TRADERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
21
AND ORS.
from merely 'achieving a public purpose' for which the
A
land is acquired under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. Development plan, Regional Plan and
town planning scheme are major events in the
development of a State. They are controlled and guided
by different financial, architectural iiind public interest for
B
the development including macro and micro planning of
the entire State. The provisions relating to planned
development of the State or any part thereof, read in
conjunction with the object of the Act, show that different
time frames are required for initiation, finalization and
C
complete execution of such development plans.