YOGESH KAMLAKAR MANGLE AND ANR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF REVEUNE AND FOREST AND ORS
Land Acquisition Compensation: High Court Quashes Circular Excluding One Year of Sale Instances Before Notification; Upholds Three-Year Period as per 2013 Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57616-DB
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; The Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955; The General Clauses Act, 1897; Land Acquisition
- Facts: Several writ petitions challenged a circular issued by the Maharashtra State Government's Revenue and Forest Department, which directed that sale instances within one year prior to a land acquisition notification should be discarded when determining compensation. This circular was based on an interpretation of Section 26(1) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") derived from orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Petitioners argued the circular was contrary to the 2013 Act and would unfairly reduce compensation. The lead petition concerned land acquired for the Pune Ring Road project under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955.
- Procedural Posture: The case was heard by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, as a batch of writ petitions raising a common issue of law and fact.
- Issue: Is the impugned circular, which excludes sale instances within one year prior to the Section 11 notification for determining land compensation, contrary to Section 26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? What is the effect of this circular on land acquisition awards?
- Holding: Yes, the impugned circular is illegal, null, and void as it contradicts Section 26(1) read with Section 11 of the 2013 Act. Any actions taken based on this circular are also rendered illegal.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act, along with Explanation 1, specifies that the average sale price should be computed based on sale deeds registered for similar land in the vicinity during the three years immediately preceding the year of acquisition. The circular's exclusion of the one-year period before the Section 11 notification was deemed an impermissible reading of the statute. The court emphasized that the date for determining market value, as per the proviso to Section 26(1), is the date of the Section 11 notification. The circular also wrongly relied on Punjab and Haryana High Court decisions, which did not address the specific issue of excluding the one-year period. The court also noted that the circular would dilute Section 105 of the 2013 Act, which prevents the State Government from reducing compensation. The court clarified that Section 4 notification is only a preliminary step and cannot be equated with Section 11 notification for determining market value.
🔒 For Members Only