Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court, Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, delivered a detailed judgment in a case concerning land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the implications of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Division Bench stated that the acquisition of agricultural lands in Satara district had lapsed as the state had neither taken possession nor tendered compensation to the petitioners since the award was passed in 2001.

The petitioners, legal heirs of the original landowners, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of their properties located in Sonaichiwadi, Taluka Patan, District Satara, under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The properties in question included agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 683 and Gat No. 275, each measuring 0 Hectares and 40 Ares. These lands were acquired by the state under an award dated February 25, 2001.

Also Read: “Government’s Decision to Cancel Selection Process Not Arbitrary”: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Judgment on Assam Forest Protection Force Recruitment

The petitioners contended that despite the award, no compensation had been paid to them, and the physical possession of the land remained with them. They argued that, as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, if possession was not taken and compensation was not paid for five years or more since the making of the award, the acquisition proceedings would lapse.

Initially, in a judgement dated May 2, 2017, the Bombay High Court upheld the petitioners’ claims and declared the acquisition lapsed. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, the Deputy Collector (Resettlement), the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and other government officials, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in an order dated October 21, 2024, remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration in light of the Constitution Bench judgement in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The state government defended the acquisition, arguing that mutation entries made in the revenue records in 2001-2002 demonstrated that possession had been taken. However, the petitioners countered that no kabjepatti (possession receipt) or panchanama (memorandum of possession) was available on record. They obtained information through an RTI application, confirming that no such possession document existed in government records.

The government further asserted that the delay in filing the writ petition should bar the claim under the principle of laches. However, the petitioners argued that the right to challenge the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only arose after the Act came into effect on January 1, 2014, and that they had filed their petition within a reasonable time after obtaining necessary documents through RTI.

The court relied on the Indore Development Authority case, which held that land acquisition proceedings lapse only if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid. The court recorded that "there is no dispute that no compensation was paid to the Petitioners since the Award dated 25 February 2001" and observed that the state had failed to provide "any cogent and convincing evidence or documents to show that the government had taken actual physical possession of the subject land."

The judgment referred to Hari Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 4 SCC 280, stating that mere paper possession does not vest the land in the state. The court observed that "taking possession means actual possession. Paper possession is not sufficient to vest the land in the State."

The court rejected the state’s argument regarding the delay in filing the writ petition, stating that a fresh cause of action arose upon the enactment of the 2013 Act. It noted that the petitioners had acted diligently by seeking information under RTI before filing their petition in 2015. The court further pointed out that the state’s affidavits did not contain any categorical denial of the petitioners’ assertion that they remained in possession of the land.

The judgment also noted that while the government claimed that mutation entries showed possession had been taken, there was no supporting evidence such as a kabjepatti or panchanama. The court observed that revenue records also indicated that the petitioners continued cultivating crops on the land for several years after the award, further undermining the state’s claim.

Additionally, the court referenced the A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar and Others case (2025 SCC Online SC 447), which held that mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish possession unless corroborated by independent evidence. The court observed that "in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence or documents to show that the government had taken actual physical possession of the subject land, the valuable rights of the parties could not be defeated."

The Bombay High Court declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, stating:

"Following the law in Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned acquisition will have to be declared as lapsed, leaving it open to the State Government, if it so chooses, to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the said properties afresh in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act."

Also Read: Meghalaya High Court Mandates Detailed Justification and Inspection Before Tree Felling, Restricts Immediate Cutting to Imminent Danger Cases

The court also rejected the state’s request for a stay on the judgment, stating:

"Since no compensation was paid and possession remained with the Petitioners, there is no question of any stay."

Regarding Respondents 7 to 9, who claimed that the state had allotted the acquired land to them, the court declined to issue any directions for their rehabilitation. It stated that if they had any claim against the state, they were free to pursue legal remedies independently.

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Petitioners: Mr. Amol Gatne, Advocate

• For the State: Mr. B.V. Samant (Additional Government Pleader), Ms. M.S. Bane (Assistant Government Pleader)

• For Private Respondents: Mr. Akshay R. Kapadia, Mr. M.R. Sherekar, Advocates

Case Title: Shri Sakharam Govinda Kadam (Since deceased through legal heirs) & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC AS:10999-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5854 of 2015

Bench: Justice M.S. Sonak, Justice Jitendra Jain

[Read/Download order]