Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of a petitioner challenging the acquisition of private land by municipal authorities without monetary compensation. The court directed the respondent authorities to acquire the petitioner’s land in compliance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and ensure compensation is duly paid. The decision underscores the statutory and constitutional protections against unauthorized expropriation of private property.

The petitioner, Purnima Talkies, a proprietary concern through Hemant Mali, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking relief against the actions of the Dahanu Nagar Parishad and the State of Maharashtra. The dispute arose when the municipal authorities undertook road widening work on the petitioner’s land, which included the demolition of a compound wall, without offering monetary compensation.

The petitioner’s land, measuring 3,027 square meters, was originally granted to the family by a sanad dated October 1, 1939. Over the years, legal heirs were duly recorded in the revenue records. The land was impacted by a development plan notified by the Urban Development Department of Maharashtra on April 4, 2012, which included a provision for road widening. The authorities argued that the widening project was necessary for infrastructural improvements, while the petitioner contended that such actions could only be taken after proper acquisition proceedings.

On August 30, 2022, the Dahanu Nagar Parishad issued a notice to the petitioner regarding the road expansion. The notice directed the petitioner and legal heirs to remain present at a hearing with title documents on September 1, 2022. The petitioner submitted a written representation on September 20, 2022, seeking clarity on the compensation process. Additionally, an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) was filed on September 22, 2022, requesting documents related to the acquisition plan. When the petitioner found that not all documents were provided, an appeal under the RTI Act was filed on November 11, 2022.

Despite multiple representations, no resolution was reached. The petitioner issued a legal notice on February 10, 2023, challenging the proposed demolition. The authorities replied on February 15, 2023, claiming that the compound wall obstructed the road-widening project. Subsequently, on January 16, 2024, the respondents demolished the compound wall under police protection and marked the land for road expansion.

The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 29 of 2023 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu, under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a temporary injunction against further demolition. The trial court denied the injunction on January 10, 2024, leading the petitioner to amend the plaint on July 16, 2024, adding a claim for damages amounting to Rs. 4,85,000. A subsequent appeal was filed, and on May 31, 2024, the appellate court partially allowed the appeal, directing a fresh adjudication of the petitioner’s interim relief application.

Following the appellate order, the petitioner was heard before the municipal authorities on July 19, 2024. However, the petitioner objected to the manner of hearing and accused the authorities of bias. Notwithstanding these objections, the municipal body issued an order on July 23, 2024, refusing monetary compensation and offering only Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and Floor Space Index (FSI) benefits. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court on August 11, 2024, challenging the refusal to grant monetary compensation.

The court examined the legality of the municipal action under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) and the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. Addressing the key contention, the court observed: “Acquisition of land reserved for public purpose under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act cannot be unilateral. It requires a mutual agreement between the acquiring authority and the landowner.”

The judgment referenced the Full Bench ruling in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers v. State of Maharashtra, which held that in the absence of a formal agreement, the only mode of acquisition is under Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act, invoking the 2013 Act for compensation.

The court recorded: “Insisting on the acceptance of TDR/FSI without an agreement cannot be construed as a step towards lawful acquisition.”

It further held that the demolition of the compound wall, absent a concluded contract on compensation, violated the statutory framework.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, stating due process in land acquisition: “The right to restitution or fair compensation is an integral component of acquisition proceedings, ensuring compliance with Article 300A of the Constitution.”.

The Court also referred to the seven guiding principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which ought to be followed by the authorities, prior to land acquisition, for public purpose. These are summarized as under:
A. The Right to Notice,
B. The Right to be Heard,
C. The Right to a reasoned decision,
D. The Duty to Acquire only for Public Purpose,
E. The Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation,
F. The Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process,
G. The Right of Conclusion

The court also noted the established principle that property rights under Article 300A cannot be extinguished without the due process of law. It stated previous rulings affirming that even public purpose acquisitions must comply with statutory compensation requirements.

The court set aside the impugned order of the municipal authorities and directed that the petitioner’s land be acquired only through proper legal channels under the 2013 Act. The respondents were restrained from disturbing the petitioner’s possession until monetary compensation is determined and paid. The authorities were instructed to complete the acquisition process in accordance with statutory mandates and refrain from unilateral action. The petitioner’s claim for damages was directed to be considered by the trial court in pending proceedings.

Case Title: Purnima Talkies v. Chief Officer, Dahanu Nagar Parishad & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 11543 of 2024
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni & Justice Advait M. Sethna

[Read/Download order]