VIJAY ANANDRAO SAWANT AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Constitutional Right to Property: Nominal Compensation for Land Acquisition Violates Article 300A; Fair Compensation Mandated Under 2013 Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53310-DB
Decision Date: 03-12-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 300A; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965; Development Control Regulations (DCR); Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Facts: The petitioner's predecessor was induced to hand over land to the Baramati Municipal Council in 1991 for road construction with the promise of adequate compensation. The Municipal Council constructed the road but offered only a nominal compensation of Re. 1/-, relying on Development Control Regulations (DCR) that allowed for such nominal payments for land used for roads and open spaces. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2001 seeking fair compensation.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the Bombay High Court as a writ petition filed in 2002, challenging the Municipal Council's action. The respondents opposed the petition, citing the DCR and delay/laches on the part of the petitioner.
- Issue: Is the Municipal Council justified in offering only nominal compensation (Re. 1/-) for land utilized for road construction, based on the DCR, when the land was handed over with a promise of adequate compensation? Does Article 300A of the Constitution of India mandate just and fair compensation in such cases, overriding the DCR? Can the argument of delay and laches be raised against the petitioner when their constitutional right to property is at stake?
- Holding: No, the Municipal Council is not justified in offering only nominal compensation. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to determine and pay fair compensation to the petitioners.
- Reasoning: The Court held that Article 300A of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to property, which includes the right to just and fair compensation when a person is deprived of their property. The Court relied on several precedents, including Pt. Chet Ram Vashist & Ors. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Bernard Francis Joseph & Ors. V/s. Government of Karnataka & Ors., to emphasize that nominal compensation is illusory and violates Article 300A. The Court rejected the argument of delay and laches, stating that it pales into insignificance when the petitioners have been deprived of their land's enjoyment since 1991 without receiving adequate compensation. The Court also noted that Section 330(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act cannot override the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A. The Court directed the Municipal Council to initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act to ensure fair compensation.
🔒 For Members Only