Land Acquisition | Possession Rightly Taken; Advance Compensation Cannot Be Recovered: Bombay High Court Upholds Advance Compensation

Bombay High Court delivered a significant judgment in a set of contentious petitions concerning the acquisition of land in Asudgaon, Panvel, Raigad, for the Navi Mumbai project. The division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan ruled in favor of the landowners, affirming the payment of advance compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), and dismissed claims that the acquisition process was flawed.

The Court addressed three petitions: Writ Petition 1983 of 2023 filed by Ashok and Atul Gangadhar Puranik, seeking completion of acquisition and balance compensation; Writ Petition 7604 of 2018 filed by Ranjit Anand Puranik, claiming ancestral rights over the property; and Writ Petition 10264 of 2023 by Ranjit, seeking the restoration of possession to a Court Receiver discharged in 2003.

The Court ruled that the advance compensation paid to the landowners in 2018 was valid, rejecting the State's demand for a refund of Rs. 35.54 crores. The State had claimed that the compensation was erroneously paid, as the land was allegedly in the possession of a Court Receiver appointed in 1970 during a family partition dispute.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held: "Having given our anxious consideration to the record and in view of the explicit findings in respect of the Subject Property by the Learned Single Judge, we are left in no manner of doubt that when possession over the Subject Property had indeed been given (and that is admitted and demonstrated from the possession receipt dated June 30, 2018), there can be no scope for any view that the Court Receiver had been in possession."

The Court further noted that possession of the property was taken by the State on June 30, 2018, and the Receiver had been discharged years earlier through consensual settlements in 2003.

The Court dismissed Ranjit's petitions, which sought to invalidate the acquisition on the basis of his alleged ancestral property rights. Referring to earlier family settlements and the discharge of the Court Receiver, the bench observed:

"Ranjit’s repeated litigation is nothing but a misuse of judicial process. His claims of ancestral property rights are baseless and have been conclusively negated by earlier orders. At best, Ranjit’s interest could only relate to his share in Anand's share of the property. Yet, he has persistently dragged Ashok and Atul into litigation with no substantive basis."

The Court highlighted the disruptive nature of Ranjit's claims, terming them frivolous and devoid of merit. The bench directed Ranjit to pay Rs. 5 lakhs each as costs to Ashok and Atul.

The Court criticized the State's handling of the acquisition process and the contradictory affidavits filed by its officials. Referring to the conflicting stances, the bench stated:

"The conduct of the State authorities has been marked by inconsistencies and inexplicable contradictions. The reliance on the purported possession of the Court Receiver, even after a categorical judicial finding to the contrary, reveals gross negligence and a lack of accountability."

The bench directed the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to investigate the conduct of the officials involved and file a report within six months.

The Court reiterated the importance of the right to property, stating: "The right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a valuable constitutional right. Deprivation of property without due compensation is a violation of this constitutional guarantee."

In its ruling, the Court affirmed the following: possession of the land was validly taken; the advance compensation paid was lawful; and the State must compute and pay the balance compensation with interest under the 2013 Act within six weeks. The Court also clarified that the claim of possession by the Court Receiver had been conclusively resolved in prior proceedings, rendering Ranjit's related claims meritless.

Concluding the judgment, the bench emphasized: "This is a glaring example of how vexatious litigation and administrative inefficiency can obstruct justice and deprive individuals of their rightful entitlements. We trust this order will serve as a corrective to prevent such occurrences in the future."

Date of Decision: November 26, 2024