POONA TIMBER MERCHANTS AND SAW MILL OWNERS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                              [2008] 5 S.C.R. 547


                    POONA TIMBER MERCHANTS AND                             A
                    SAW MILL OWNERS ASSOCIATION
                                       V.
                  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 2152 of 2008)

                              MARCH 27, 2008                               B

             [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H, KAPADIA, JJ.]

              Maharashtra Regional and town planning Act, 1966:
        s. 127- Scope and ambit of - Held: Similar matter referred to      c
        larger Bench - Held: In fitness of things, the present case also
        need to be heard along with those matters.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
        2152 of 2008.
                                                                           D
~             From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2005 &
 J.,    02.05.2005 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ
        Petition No. 7846 of 2004.
                                     WITH
                                                                           E
             Civil Appeal Nos. 2153-2156 of 2008.

             T.R.Andhyarujina, R.F. Nariman, K.K. Venugopal Dushyant
        A. Dave. Shyam Divan, Arun Jaitley and S. Ganesh, S.C. Birla,
        Subrat Birla, Anil V. Antur Kar, Markand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar,
        Vishwajit Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Hari         F
        Kumar G. (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co,), Girish Godbole, Shivaji
·::..   M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta, Brij Kishor Sah, Rahul Joshi, Syed
        Nagvi, Smieetta Inna, Rajesh Kamlakar Satpalkar, Rajesh
        Kumar, S.S. ShindeandV.N. RaghupathyfortheAppearing parties.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    G

             DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
            2. In all these cases certain provisions of the Maharashtra
        Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short the 'Act') call
                                      547                                  H
    548       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A for determination. Basically the scope and ambit of Section 127
  of the Act is the pivotal provision. Three writ petitions were
  disposed of by the common judgment. Writ petition no. 7846 of
  2004 was filed by M/s CV Shah and A.V. Bhat. Writ petition
  no.9644 of 2004 was filed by Tajuddin Mohhammadbhai while
B writ petition no.5077 of 2004 was filed by Poona Timber
  Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association. By the common                j..

  judgment the High Court partly allowed the writ petition nos. 7846
  and 9644 of 2004 while writ petition no.5077 of 2004 was
  dismissed. The High Court while granting partly relief in the writ
c petitions held as follows:
          "(i) Writ Petition Nos. 7846 of 2004 and 9644 of 2004 are
          partly allowed.
          (ii) The designation of the subject land being survey no.577,
          Hissa No.1, Survey No.577, Hissa No.2, Survey No.577,
D
          Hissa No.3 and Survey No.578, Hissa No.1 (part) in
          revised Development Plan of Pune City notified no.              ,..
          5.1.1987 for 'Timber Industries' is declared to have lapsed
          under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, 1966.

E         (iii) Writ Petition no.5077 of 2004 is dismissed.
          No costs."
         3. After hearing all these appeals were concluded, it is
  noticed that scope and ambit of Section 127 came up for
F consideration    by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3703 of 2003,
  civil appeal no.3922 of 2007 as three-Judge Bench was hearing
                                                                           lL
  the matter. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan as his Lordship was
  the then, inter alia, observed as follows:
          "When we interpret Section 127 of the Act, it is not possible
G         to forget the impact of Section 126(1) of the Act. Obviously,
          the provisions have to be read harmoniously. The court
          can only postulate the question whether the authority under
          the MRTP Act has done which it possibly could, in terms          -,.-t
          of the statute. Therefore, while reading Section 127, we
H         have to take note of the fact that the authority under the
          POONA TIMBER MER. & SAW MILL OWNERS ASSN.                   549
           v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
--"1         MRZ P Act can only make an application for acquisition          A
             under the Land Acquisition Act and nothing more.
             Therefore, when Section 127 of the MRTP Act says that
             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 the reservation shall         B
             be deemed to lapse. We have to see what the Authority
 .J,
             under MRTP Act has done. The first part of the provision
             above quoted is unambiguous and that is a case where
             the land is actually acquired. Or, in other words, the
             acquisition is complete. The second limb above quoted           c
             shows that it is possible to avert the lapse of the scheme
             if steps as aforesaid are commenced for its acquisition.
             The step that the authority under the MRTP Act can
             commence, is the step of applying to the State Government
             to acquire such land under the Land Acquisition Act. After
                                                                             D
             all, the legislature has given the authority a locus
 ~
             poenitentiae for invoking the machinery for acquisition
     "'      under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, when a
             purchase notice is received by it, in all reasonableness,
             what it can do is to make an application to the State
             Government to make the acquisition within six months of         E
             the receipt of the purchase notice. Is it necessary or proper
             to whittle down the locus poenitentiae given to ensure that
             even at the last moment the lapsing of the scheme can be
             averted by the authority under the MRTP Act or even after
             ten years it can seek the acquisition of the land on the        F
             receipt of the purchase notice? It is in that context that in
  -~
             Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Dr.
             Hakimwadi Tenants Association&. Ors. (supra) this Court
             approved the view of the Bombay High Court that it is
             enough if the application is made by the Authority for          G
             acquisition of the land. Suppose, immediately on receipt
             of a purchase notice, the authority under the MRTP Act
             makes an application to the Government to acquire the
  -)         land and for administrative reasons or otherwise it takes
             the Government time to initiate the proceeding and the six      H
    550       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A         months expire in between, can it be postulated that the          ....
          reservation has lapsed? In that case we will be compelling
          the authority under the MRTP Act to do something that it
          has no power to do. According to me such an interpretation
          of the provision would be unreasonable and should be
B         avoided. Here, the application has been made according
          to the respondents by the Chief Engineer as authorised          ,..
          by the local authority and to say that the letter written by
          him is unauthorised or is not adequate compliance of
          Section 127 of the MRTP Act appears to me to be
          unwarranted especially when we keep in mind the laudable
c         objects of the MRTP Act.
          The MRTP Act serves a great social purpose an~ the
          approach of the court to an interpretation must be to see
          to it that the social purpose is not defeated as far as
D         possible. Therefore, a purposive interpretation of Section
          127 of the Act so as to achieve the object of the MRTP Act           ~
          is called for.                                                 ,A


          I would, therefore, hold that there has been sufficient
          compliance with the requirement of Section 127 of the
E         MR T P 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
F         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        l<.
          conclusion on the aspect relating to Section 127 of the
          MRTP Act. The said question also would stand referred to
          the larger Bench."
G
        4. By a separate judgment Brother P.P. Naolekar for himself
    and Brother B.N. Agrawal, inter alia, noted as follows:
          "For this and the other reasons assigned by our learned
          brother, we are in agreement with him that the question
H         involved requires consideration by a larger Bench and,
POONA TIMBER MER. & SAW MILL OWNERS ASSN.                      551
 v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [PASAYAT, J)
       accordingly, we agree with the reasons recorded by my A
       learned brother for referring the question to a larger Bench.
       However, on consideration of the erudite judgment pre-
       pared by our esteemed learned brother Balasubramanyan,
       J., regretfully we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree
       to the decision arrived at by him on interpretation of Section B
       127 of the MRTP Act and also reference ofthe 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 C
       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 consi-
       deration keeping in mind the time lag between the period D
       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 inter- E
        preted in the facts and circumstances of each individual
        case. It does not have any universal application and, there-
       fore, the applicability thereof would depend on the facts of
       each case. S.L.P.(C) No.11446 of 2005 titled Mis. S.P.
        Building Corporation and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and F
        Others, is required to be decided by this Bench only and,
       therefore, we propose to decide as follows:"
     5. In the fitness of things we, therefore, are of the view that
these cases need to be heard along with CA no.3703 of 2003
and CA no.3922 of 2007.                                                G
      6. The matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India for necessary orders.
                                                '·
D.G.                         To be heard with C.A Nos 3703 of
                              2003 and C.A No. 3922 of 2007.           H