- Case
- VASANTHI HEGDE THROUGH HER POA G.V. NAGARAJ v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS. (Bombay High Court, 28-03-2025)
- Law
- Land Acquisition Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: The petitioner, Vasanthi Hegde, claimed an interest in land acquired for the New Bombay project based on a conveyance deed dated August 2, 2014, from Naveen Nath, allegedly a Power of Attorney holder for the original landowners (Respondents 4 to 6). This purchase occurred after the issuance of Section 4 and Section 6 Notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner challenged the land acquisition proceedings and a consent award dated April 7, 2015.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8011 of 2017 in the Bombay High Court, challenging the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the consent award. Two other connected writ petitions (Nos. 9171 and 11594 of 2017) were also considered, with Writ Petition No. 8011 being treated as the lead petition.
Issue: (1) Can a person who purchases land after the issuance of a Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenge the acquisition proceedings? (2) Does the petitioner have the right to challenge the consent award dated April 7, 2015, given that the conveyance was executed after the Section 4 and 6 Notifications? (3) Was the Deputy Collector justified in not making a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Holding: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that a person who purchases land after the issuance of a Section 4 Notification cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. The Court also held that the petitioner's challenge to the consent award was not maintainable due to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the conveyance and the disputed questions of fact. The Court found no fault with the Deputy Collector's decision not to make a reference under Section 30.
Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and Others (2019) 10 SCC 229, which held that persons purchasing property after a Section 4 Notification have no right to question the acquisition. The Court also cited several other precedents establishing that such sales are void against the State. The Court noted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the conveyance to the petitioner, including the lack of clarity regarding any exemption or permission from the Collector and the dispute over Naveen Nath's authority. The Court emphasized that Article 226 jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving highly contentious factual disputes. The Court clarified that the petitioner could pursue other remedies, such as a civil suit, to assert her compensation claim, as outlined in Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar (2003) 3 SCC 128.
