OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT LTD Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(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:

(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: