- Case
- AVINASH DHAVJI NAIK AND ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 24-03-2025)
- Law
- Land Acquisition Act, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: Several petitioners challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Old Act) and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act). The acquisitions were for setting up a new township. The petitioners contested the validity of the acquisition, citing non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Acts, particularly regarding prior approval and the time limit for making an award. They also sought allotment of 20% of developed land as per the New Act.Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as a batch of writ petitions, with Writ Petition No. 1488 of 2016 treated as the lead petition. The arguments concluded on 27 February 2025, and the matters were reserved for orders.Issue: (1) Whether the provisions regarding prior approval under Section 11 and lapsing of acquisition under Section 11A of the Old Land Acquisition Act, read with corresponding provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act, apply to the impugned acquisition proceedings under the MRTP Act? (2) Whether the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance with the requirement of prior approval of the State Government under the proviso to Section 11 of the Old Land Acquisition Act? (3) Whether the acquisition had lapsed given the provisions of Section 11A of the Old Land Acquisition Act read with Section 25 of the New Land Acquisition Act? (4) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to 20% of the developed land in proportion to the area of the acquired land, and at a price equal to the cost of acquisition and the cost of development?Holding: The High Court held that the provisions of Section 11 and 11A of the Old Land Acquisition Act do not apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Girnar Traders (3) Vs. State of Maharashtra. However, the Court found that the prior approval as contemplated by the proviso to Section 11 of the Old Land Acquisition Act was not obtained, and the awards were made beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 11A of the Old Land Acquisition Act or Section 25 of the New Land Acquisition Act. Despite this, the Court could not declare the acquisition proceedings lapsed or void due to the precedent set in Girnar Traders (3). The Court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioners' alternate pleas for allotment of developed lands in terms of entry 3, schedule II in the New Land Acquisition Act within a time-bound schedule.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the MRTP Act is a self-contained code, and the reference to the Land Acquisition Act is only to avail of the acquisition machinery. The Court relied heavily on the Girnar Traders (3) precedent, which held that amendments to the Land Acquisition Act after its incorporation into the MRTP Act do not automatically apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act. The Court also expressed strong disapproval of the State Government's inconsistent stances and the filing of false affidavits regarding the status and dates of the awards. Despite finding irregularities in the acquisition process, the Court felt constrained by the Girnar Traders (3) precedent and directed the Respondents to consider the alternate relief of allotting developed land to the Petitioners.
