High Court orders ‘just compensation’ for land acquired 22 years ago

IN a path-breaking judgement, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has directed the State Government to pay ‘just compensation’ for the land compulsorily acquired 22 years ago without paying a farthing and rejected the decision of land acquisition officer to pay as per market rate prevailing in 1996 describing it as “gross abuse of power” and misuse of “doctrine of eminent domain” to deprive citizens from their private property under the guise of a public project. Even after the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, acquiring the property of a citizen most certainly tantamount to deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with the ‘law’ as per Article 300-A of the Constitution, the High Court noted while reiterating the two essentials of doctrine of Eminent Domain- Property must be taken for public purpose and Just compensation and quashed the award passed after unjustified and inordinate delay of 22 years.

A division bench consisting of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, while lashing out at the authorities for decision to pay compensation as per 1996 rates to land owners in 2017, directed them to undertake fresh assessment on the basis of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by taking January 1, 2014 as the date of acquisition notification. The High Court also directed to pay compensation to the petitioner within 12 months while chiding the authorities for compulsorily acquisition of land for a project, which never saw the light of the day.

The petitioners were aggrieved by the decision of LAO award passed on September 7, 2017 for the land whose acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of land Gat No. 176, Mouza Khelbar, area admeasuring 1.47 ha in Jalgaon Jamod tehsil of Buldana district. The land was initially earmarked for Civil Court, but the court building was constructed elsewhere. Later, in the development plan, the land was reserved for the Government Technical School, but no construction was made even after passage of two decades, forcing the petitioner to knock the doors of the High Court against acquisition process initiated in December 1995 and kept pending for last 22 years while paying pittance as compensation in 2017 as per 1996 rate.

According to respondent Land Acquisition Officer, the acquisition proceedings were challenged in earlier round of petitions and dismissed upto the level of Apex Court and even the Review Petition was also dismissed and hence during pendency, the acquisition proceedings were not continued. After dismissal of review petition, the LAO continued with the acquisition proceedings and determined the award strictly as per law which is just, fair and proper. As the acquisition proceedings were under the MRTP Act, there was no time frame provided under the Act for completion of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, there was no infirmity, perversity, illegality or arbitrariness in the award passed on September 7, 2017.

However, the High Court rejected this feeble justification and pointed out that change of user under Development Plan has no nexus with legal grounds raised in the petition. The High Court also noted that there was no stay against the acquisition proceedings and no legal bar from completing the same and refused to buy the logic behind 22 years logic on the touchstone of catena of rulings of Supreme Court and recently enacted Fair Compensation Act while reiterating the concept of just compensation to land owners. Senior Counsel M G Bhangde, Adv Rahul Bhangde and Adv Saurabh Tapadia appeared for the petitioners. AGP V P Maldhure represented respondents.