MRS. SUMITRA SHRIDHAR KHANE v. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR KOLHAPUR AND ORS
Right to Compensation under Article 300A: Voluntary Surrender Does Not Waive Compensation; Delay Not Always Fatal; State's Duty to Act Lawfully.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:19937-DB
Decision Date: 02-05-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Constitution of India, Article 300A; Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; General Clauses Act, 1897; Limitation Act, 1963; Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963; Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
- Facts: The petitioner voluntarily surrendered possession of her land in 1990 for a public project (Dudhganga Irrigation Project) based on an affidavit, with the understanding that she would receive compensation. A notification for land acquisition was issued, but the petitioner's land was not included in the final award. Despite this, the land was allotted to project-affected persons, rendering the petitioner landless without compensation. The petitioner applied for compensation in 2021, which was denied.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions for the respondents to complete the acquisition process and pay compensation. The respondents argued delay and voluntary surrender as bars to relief.
- Issue: Is the petitioner entitled to compensation for land acquired/utilized for a public purpose, despite the land not being included in the land acquisition award and the petitioner having voluntarily surrendered possession? Further, does the delay in asserting her rights disentitle the petitioner to compensation?
- Holding: Yes, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. The delay is not fatal, and the respondents are directed to treat the land as deemed acquired and disburse compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with applicable benefits and interest.
- Reasoning: The Court held that depriving a person of property without due process and compensation violates Article 300A of the Constitution. The "voluntary" surrender did not waive the right to compensation. The State's failure to complete the acquisition and pay compensation constitutes a continuing wrong. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents like Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., emphasizing that the State cannot evade its responsibility to compensate those whose land has been expropriated, even with delay. The Court also highlighted the seven sub-rights under Article 300A, including the right to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, acquisition for public purpose, restitution/fair compensation, efficient process, and conclusion.
🔒 For Members Only