ANURADHA W/O. DYNDEO INGLE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECY., DEPT. OF REVENUE, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
Discusses land acquisition, right to be heard, statutory compliance, and constitutional rights, applicable across legal domains.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5824-DB
Decision Date: 18-06-2025
List of Laws
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law
- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The judgment extensively discusses several sections of the Act. Section 4 to 9 are mentioned in relation to social impact assessment, with the argument that they are not attracted due to prior environmental assessment. Section 11(1) is cited as the section under which the impugned notification was issued, which the petitioners challenge. The core of the judgment revolves around Section 15, which mandates the Collector to decide on objections presented by landowners. The court finds that the Collector's failure to address the objections violates Section 15, specifically Section 15(2), and emphasizes the mandatory nature of compliance with its procedure. The judgment references the interpretation of Section 15(2) in Shiv Singh Vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh, highlighting the Collector's duty to provide a hearing, conduct inquiries, and submit a report to the government. The court also draws parallels between Section 15 of the 2013 Act and Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, emphasizing the importance of the right to be heard.
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The judgment draws a parallel between Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It cites several cases where the courts have interpreted Section 5-A, emphasizing that the inquiry under this section is not merely statutory but also has a flavor of fundamental rights. The judgment quotes from various cases, including Om Prakash v. State of U.P., to support the view that the right to be heard under Section 5-A is a valuable right and the hearing should not be rendered a mere formality. It also references Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory, highlighting the vital role of objections in the land acquisition process.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses the right to property under Article 300-A, noting that while it is no longer a fundamental right, it still enjoys constitutional status and serves as a check against arbitrary acquisition. It mentions that the right to property has migrated from Chapter-III of the Constitution pursuant to the 44th Constitutional Amendment. The judgment also references Articles 14 and 19 in the context of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that it has a flavor of fundamental rights under these articles.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the statutory mandate and procedural compliance in land acquisition proceedings. It highlights the principle of the right to be heard, drawing support from the Supreme Court's judgment in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another Vrs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others, which emphasizes that the right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham. The judgment also stresses that procedural impropriety on the part of the State is not permissible and that statutory provisions should be given a wider meaning.
🔒 For Members Only