Land Acquisition Compensation Not Paid Even After 35 Years: Bombay HC Directs MHADA To Pay 5L To Landowner For Infringing His Constitutional & Human Rights
|The Bombay High Court, noting the constitutional and human rights infringement, has directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to pay interim compensation for acquiring a piece of land in 1988-1989.
The Court pointed out that “callous and insensitive” violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution on the part of MHADA and the State Government for an "inordinate and insensitive delay" in taking away a citizen’s property and not paying him any compensation for almost 36 years.
A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Kamal Khata observed, “In the present case, there is no question of any delay and laches attributable to the Petitioner…Instead, this is a case of gross, inordinate, and unexplained delay by the statutory authorities in paying compensation to the Petitioner for acquiring his property in 1988-1989. The action, or rather, this inaction of the statutory authorities, violates the Petitioner’s Constitutional and Human rights. The MHADA must be made to compensate the Petitioner for infringing his Constitutional and Human rights.”
Advocate Omprakash Pandey appeared for the petitioner, while AGP Nishigandh Patil represented the respondent.
The petitioner's property was acquired by MHADA in 1988-1989, for which he has not received any compensation to date. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) at MHADA acknowledged that the possession of the property was handed over on June 5, 1989, yet no records of compensation or award determination were found.
The High Court noted that the State functionaries took possession of the Petitioners' lands without any sanction of law. It was stated that such conduct amounted to virtual expropriation of a citizen’s property without the authority of law and without paying any compensation.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013) wherein it was held that depriving citizens of their immovable properties without compensation was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and the same bred corruption and disrespect for governance.
Placing reliance on Tukaram’s Case (Supra), the Bench also pointed out that the statutory authorities in a welfare state were obligated not only to provide adequate compensation but also to rehabilitate affected individuals. “The State, especially a welfare State governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution,” the Bench added
Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the gross facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in concluding that the Respondents (State and MHADA), by acquiring the Petitioner’s property in 1989-90 but not paying the Petitioner any compensation till date have violated the Petitioner’s human right and constitutional right.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Yusuf Yunus Kantharia v. Bombay Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:11500-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Omprakash Pandey, Rahul Pandey, Pramila Pandey and Alok Singh
Respondents: AGP Nishigandh Patil; Advocate P. G. Lad