Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Nagpur vs Shri Nanaji

Prabhakar Diwase & 6 Others, 21 November 20151

In this case the notification under Section 32(1) of the said Act which is equivalent to Section
6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 27.03.1993. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award on 10.01.1995 offering market price of Rs.55,000/- per
hectare. The claimants not being satisfied with it, preferred reference under Section 34 of the
said Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 31.07.1995 claiming
enhancement of compensation on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 31.10.1994
at Exh.26 and the Ready Reckoner at Exh.25, the market price at the rate of Rs.100/- per
sq.mtr as fixed by the Government for the purposes of imposition of stamp duty under the
Stamps Act.

Case Proceedings:
The claimants have failed to establish that the price of the land at Rs.100/- per sq. mtr
specified in Ready-reckoner at Exh. 25 represents the true and correct market value of the
land. There is no evidence on record in the form of sale instances to substantiate the claim for
enhancement of compensation from Rs.55,000/- per hectare to Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare.
There is no evidence brought on record to show that the land in question bears non-
agricultural potentiality. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that it is a fertile land
under cultivation. The finding recorded by the reference Court that the claimants are entitled
to enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare is not based upon
any evidence.

Results:

The reference Court ought to have rejected the claim for enhancement of compensation.
In view of this, there is no question of claimants being entitled to enhancement of
compensation.

The appellant has deposited the amount in this Court, which is permitted to be withdrawn
along with the interest accrued thereon.

1
Bombay High Court, Mah.Industrial ... vs Shri Prabhakar Nanaji Diwase And 6 ... on 21 November, 2015
 Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr .Versus Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki & Ors.
Supreme court of India
(24th January 2014)
Appellant: Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Respondent: Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.
Bench: R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph
Brief facts of case:
● 6th August 2002 - The proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal
Corporation duly approved by the Standing Committee for acquisition of lands
admeasuring 43.94 acres for development of “Forest Garden” was sent to the
Collector, Pune.
● The Collector sanctioned the proposal and on 20th February 2003 forwarded the
same to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune for further action.
● 30th September 2004 - The notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was
published in the official gazette. Then notices were served upon the
landowners/interested persons.
● 26th December 2005 - The declaration under Section 6 was published in the official
gazette
● 2nd February 2006 - It was also published at the site and on the notice board of the
Office of Talathi.
● The landowners challenged the above acquisition proceedings before the Bombay
High Court in 9 writ petitions from which 2 were filed before making award and 7
after the award.
● The challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the validity of the award was laid on
diverse grounds including
(i) absence of resolution of the General Body of the Corporation
(ii) non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5A
(iii) non-compliance with the provisions of Section 7
(iv) lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A.
Arguments of Land owner:
It is argued on behalf of the landowners that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act, the subject acquisition shall be deemed to have been lapsed because the award under
Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made more than five years prior to the commencement of 2013
Act and no compensation has been paid to the owners nor the amount of compensation has
been deposited in the court by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Arguments on behalf of Corporation and Collector:
The award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.2008 strictly
in terms of 1894 Act and on the very day the landowners were informed regarding the
quantum of compensation for their respective lands. Notices were also issued to the
landowners to reach the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and receive the
amount of compensation and since they neither received the compensation nor any request
came from them to make reference to the District Court under Section 18
The compensation amounting to Rs.27 crores was deposited in the government
treasury. It is, thus, submitted that there was no default on the part of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer or the government and, hence, the acquisition proceedings have not
lapsed.
Judgment of High court of Bombay:
The High Court on consideration of the arguments advanced before it by the parties
has held that the acquisition proceedings for the development of Forest Garden could not be
initiated by the Commissioner with the mere approval of the Standing Committee without
resolution of the General Body of the Corporation. The acquisition proceedings were also
held bad in law for non-compliance of Section 7 and other statutory breaches. The High
Court has quashed the acquisition proceedings and gave certain directions including
restoration of possession.
Judgment of Supreme Court of India:
Argued on behalf of the respondents-landowners that in view of Section 24(2) of The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 which has come into effect on 01.01.2014, the subject land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed.
The question for decision relates to the true meaning of the expression:'compensation
has not been paid' occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The 2013 Act puts in place an entirely new regime for compulsory acquisition of land
and provides for a new scheme for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the
affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or affected by
such acquisition.
1. In case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more
prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not
been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be
deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate
the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of
this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of
a majority of land holding has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries,
then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of
the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with
the provisions of this Act.'
 2. From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also an admitted position that compensation so
awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in
the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no
avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the
landowners/persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the
subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The case was in favor of Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.
Analysis of the Case:
Considering the huge variety of procedural abuse by government acquiring bodies
such as No proper notices, No copies of awards, delays occurred in payments of
compensation the process put in place by Justice Lodha is practical and true to the spirit of
law and is also consistent with land acquisition procedures
The 2013 Act still undoubtedly causes hardship to individuals because it restricts
them to the market value of what is taken from them. Although all the pecuniary losses, even
the cost of moving and the loss on earnings resulting from interference with the good-will of
business and the like, are taken into account and paid for, there are many sentimental losses
which cannot be paid for, because they have no market value.
The Act does not commit what is known as reinstatement under which a man losing a
property artistically improved at great expense might claim to be reinstated in another
property, at a great cost, possessing the same amenities. This is not what the Act offers but
only the current prosaic market value. The owner whose land is notified is in the same
position as if he were compelled to sell by some sudden reverse of fortune. He cannot stand
out for a reinstatement value, but only for what a fair-minded purchaser will offer him in the
existing state of the market.
It is the legitimate aim of all officers administering land to secure for the public all
land required for the use of the State at the least burden to the tax paying public, on the other
hand, no one should be deprived of his property even on account of State necessity without
giving him at least as much as a prudent private purchaser would pay.
➢ In case of Navi Mumbai International Airport people suffered loss of livelihood and
their ancestral properties without fair compensation and delays in payment this
judgement will be useful for the families which have still not been compensated
adequately as per the given package promised.