Provisions of Act of 2013 Cannot Be Applied Universally to MRTP Act Without Specific Notification," Rules Bombay High Court

In a recent landmark judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a series of petitions challenging the applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act of 2013") to land acquisitions under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act"). The court affirmed that the provisions of the Act of 2013 do not automatically apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act unless specifically notified by the state government.

The petitions were filed by various landowners from Nagpur challenging the notification for the town planning scheme No.1 of Mouza: Pardi, Bharatwada, Punapur, and Bhandewadi. The petitioners sought quashing of notices for handing over possession and a declaration that Sections 98 to 100 of the MRTP Act were ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They contended that compensation should be awarded under the Act of 2013, which they argued was more beneficial.

The court observed that the Act of 2013's applicability to acquisitions under the MRTP Act is explicitly excluded by Section 105-A of the Act of 2013 as amended by the Maharashtra state. Section 105-A states that the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall not apply to land acquisitions under the MRTP Act unless a specific notification is issued by the state government, which has not been done in this case.

"The provisions of the Act of 2013, stand amended by the State, by inserting Section 105-A which carves out an exception to the general applicability of the Act of 2013," the court noted​​.

Addressing the claim of discrimination, the court held that the MRTP Act constitutes a self-contained scheme for the development and reconstitution of land for public purposes. The compensation mechanism under the MRTP Act is different but not discriminatory. The MRTP Act’s provisions, including Sections 97 to 100, provide a specific method for calculating compensation and contributions, which are integral to its scheme.

"Section 97 to 100 of the MRTP Act, though they provide a different method of calculation of the compensation... they create a discrimination between persons similarly situated and therefore, would be ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution," argued the petitioners. The court, however, disagreed, stating that the differences in compensation mechanisms are justified given the unique nature of land reconstitution under the MRTP Act​​.

Role of the Arbitrator:

The court emphasized that grievances regarding the calculation of market value and compensation should be addressed by the designated Arbitrator under the MRTP Act. The Arbitrator’s role includes ensuring that compensation is fair and in accordance with statutory provisions.

The court’s legal reasoning centered on the specific exclusion of the Act of 2013 from applying to the MRTP Act unless explicitly notified. Additionally, the court reiterated that the MRTP Act’s framework for land reconstitution and compensation is distinct and justified by its developmental objectives. The MRTP Act’s provisions for compensation are embedded within its statutory scheme and thus do not inherently violate constitutional principles of equality.

"The provisions of the Act of 2013, would be attracted to the acquisition of land under the scheme and therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to compensation under the said Act of 2013," contended the petitioners. The court clarified, "In absence of any such notification, as contemplated by Section 105-A(2) of the Act of 2013, the plea that the provisions of the Act of 2013 stand applicable to the acquisition under the MRTP Act...would not be tenable"​​.

Justice Avinash G. Gharote remarked, "The provisions of Section 105-A(2) of the Act of 2013 cannot be applied universally to proceedings under the MRTP Act without a specific notification. This legal framework ensures that each statutory provision is applied within its intended scope."

The Bombay High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting statutory provisions within their legislative context. By upholding the MRTP Act’s distinct compensation mechanism, the judgment reinforces the legal framework governing urban planning and development in Maharashtra. This decision will have significant implications for future land acquisition cases under the MRTP Act, ensuring clarity and adherence to legislative intent.

Date of Decision: 28 May, 2024

Vitthal Haribhau Barde, Thr. P.O.A., vs The State Of Maharashtra