Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad, Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar, allowing a writ petition filed by landowners from Beed district, directed the Maharashtra government to operate in mission mode to identify all pending land acquisition cases across the state and conclude them expeditiously by passing awards and disbursing compensation. The court was dealing with a case where agricultural land was taken by state authorities in 1996 for construction of a village tank, the project was completed that same year, yet the landowners received no compensation for nearly three decades — a situation the court termed a systemic and continuing failure to discharge statutory and constitutional obligations. Directing payment of compensation along with statutory interest within eight weeks, the court further instructed the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to constitute a dedicated administrative structure at both the state and district levels to address all such pending acquisition matters statewide.

The petitioners, a group of agriculturists from Beed district, had their lands at village Pimpargaon Dani, Taluka Patoda taken into possession by the state's irrigation authorities on 2 February 1996 by way of private negotiation, for the construction of a village tank. The project was completed in the same year and the land has since remained in state use. No advance payment of 80% of the estimated land value, as statutorily required at the time of taking possession, was made.

Also Read: Degrees Obtained From A University That Later Lost Recognition Remain Valid: Supreme Court

Following a joint measurement report submitted in November 1997, no further steps were taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for over two decades. It was only after two of the petitioners approached the court in 2018 that proceedings were initiated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. A notification under Section 11 was issued in August 2018, followed by a declaration under Section 19 published in May 2019.

An award was eventually passed on 23 November 2020, without the petitioners ever being served notice of it. Upon learning of the award through a September 2025 communication from the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners applied for and obtained a certified copy. The state admitted before the court that compensation remained unpaid, attributing it to non-receipt of funds from the proposing authority.

The Court observed, "The issues which repeatedly come before this Court in matters of land acquisition, disclose a deeply disturbing and systemic failure on the part of the State administration. In a large number of cases, lands belonging to citizens many of whom are agriculturists, illiterate or rustic persons have been taken into possession by the acquiring authorities several years, and in some cases several decades, ago. Public projects have been completed and are in full operation. Yet, despite possession having been taken and the land having vested in the State, the acquisition proceedings have not been taken to their logical and lawful conclusion.” It recorded, “This case is not an isolated instance. It is illustrative of a larger, systemic problem, repeatedly noticed by this Court in land acquisition matters.”

On the prolonged delay, the Bench stated, “The facts of the present case as of several other matters disclose an extraordinary and wholly unjustified delay of nearly three decades in completing land acquisition proceedings even after taking possession of the petitioners’ lands.” It further observed, “Such delay has resulted not only in grave prejudice to the landowners but also in substantial and avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer.”

Addressing constitutional obligations, the Court recorded: Once land is taken from a citizen, the obligation to determine and pay compensation is absolute. Article 300A of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” It added, “Authority of law does not end with taking possession; it necessarily includes lawful determination of compensation and payment or deposit thereof.” The Bench stated, “There is no concept in constitutional or statutory law of ‘acquisition without compensation due to administrative lapse.’”

Regarding administrative conduct, the Court observed, “We are truly shocked by the manner in which statutory duties have been treated by the respondent authorities.” It stated, “The conduct of the authorities reflects a complete abdication of statutory duty.” The Bench recorded, “Officers entrusted with the responsibility of protecting citizens’ rights have behaved as if they are masters rather than servants of the public.”

On the obligation to pay compensation, the Court observed, "In cases where compensation was determined years earlier but not paid or deposited, statutory interest often not less than 15% per annum accrues for decades. Thus, a modest compensation amount, which could have been discharged in time, swells into two or three times, and in some cases far more, solely due to administrative negligence. This additional financial burden is ultimately borne by the public exchequer and paid from funds meant for welfare, development and basic necessities of citizens,"

The Court further observed: "The Court is equally mindful that many affected landowners, particularly agriculturists and illiterate persons, may not even be aware that formal acquisition proceedings have been initiated or concluded, or that they are entitled to compensation and statutory interest. Others may be aware but lack the knowledge, resources or access required to approach courts. The State, which claims to be a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take advantage of such ignorance or helplessness. Property rights under Article 300A are not illusory rights available only to those who can litigate; they are constitutional guarantees enforceable against the State itself.”

While acknowledging its limited role in policy matters, the bench observed that where statutory duties are persistently breached on a large scale — causing injustice to citizens and massive loss to the public exchequer — restricting itself to deciding individual writ petitions in isolation would itself constitute a failure of its constitutional obligation. The Court held: "In such circumstances, issuance of structured, time-bound directions to ensure performance of existing statutory duties falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The problem before the Court is not an absence of law, but persistent non-implementation of law. What is required is a focused, mission-mode administrative response to identify all pending land acquisition cases, categorise them, and take them to their lawful conclusion by passing awards, paying compensation, or depositing the same with the competent authority wherever direct payment is not possibl." 

Also Read: Long-Standing Discretionary Benefits Crystallise Into Service Conditions Under Industrial Disputes Act, Employer Cannot Withdraw Without Section 9-A Notice: Bombay High Court

The Court ordered, “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to complete the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject project by making payment of compensation to the petitioners and all other affected landowners, strictly in accordance with the award dated 23 November 2020 and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, including payment of interest as payable under Section 80 of the said Act. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order.”

“The Collector, Beed, shall ensure compliance of these directions and shall file a detailed compliance report before this Court on the next date, indicating the amounts paid, the dates of payment, and the manner of compliance in respect of each affected landowner. The Collector, Beed, shall deposit an amount of Rs. 35.00 lakh in this Court within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of the order.”

“Place the matter for first compliance on 10th March, 2026. The Registry and the Office of the Government Pleader are directed to place this judgment and order before the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, and also before the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai, for compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Shinde h/f Mr. C. H. Shinde – Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. S. B. Narwade – AGP for Respondent/State

Case Title: Shahadeo s/o Dagadu Mete & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AUG:6920-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13381 of 2025

Bench: Justice Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar