SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P. COLABAWALLA, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) (earlier ‘MSEB’) and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1430 Of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishwajit Sawant, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. Vipul Makwana i/b Mr. Yatin R. Shah.
For the Respondents: Ms. Deepa Chawan a/w. Ms. Ruchi Patil and Ms. Amita Kamble i/b Ms.Kshitija Wadatkar Associates, Mr. Sandesh Patil i/b Mr. Chintan Shah, Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP a/w. Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP, Mr Sunil Mane, Executive Engineer, Mahavitaran is present.

Acquisition of land requires compliance with statutory processes; possession alone does not validate acquisition without due procedures and compensation as mandated by law.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5A, 6, 11; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 128 and 129; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Claim for compensation for land acquired for electricity sub-station - Petitioners challenged acquisition citing lack of due process and failure to pay compensation - Court investigated MSEDCL’s assertion of lawful acquisition and found lack of compliance with both Acts. (Paras 12, 20, 24, 67)

(B) Due Process in Land Acquisition - Non-compliance with statutory requirements, such as issuing notices and conducting hearings, leads to void acquisition processes. (Paras 11, 20, 60)

(C) Delay and Laches - Court held that delay in filing the petition does not bar claims on constitutional grounds related to property rights, highlighting that each case must be determined on its own merits. (Paras 30, 37)

(D) Requirement of Compensation - Court directed Respondent to compute compensation under 2013 Act, emphasizing necessity of following legal procedures for acquisition. (Paras 67, 68)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, descendants of a previous landowner, claimed that MSEDCL unlawfully occupied their land for a sub-station without paying compensation or complying with the legal acquisition process, first discovering this in 2019. (Paras 1, 10, 50)

Findings of Court:
MSEDCL failed to provide evidence of lawful acquisition as required by law. The petitioners are entitled to compensation and the Court mandated compliance with current legislation for land acquisition. (Paras 24, 67)

Issues: Whether due legal processes for land acquisition were observed; whether the delay in petition affects the claim for compensation; and whether electricity law supersedes land acquisition statutes. (Paras 11, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: Acquisition must comply with statutory processes outlined in land acquisition laws; mere possession does not equate to legal acquisition unless due processes are followed, and delay cannot preclude consideration of rightful claims. (Paras 21, 65)

Result: Petitioners' claims are upheld, directing the Respondent to compute compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act within three months and deposit funds as prescribed. (Paras 67, 68)

Table of Content
1. land acquisition without due process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. inheritance and land ownership details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. claim of non-compliance with land acquisition procedures. (Para 10 , 11)
4. petitioners seek compensation under current laws. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. court examines evidence of possession and acquisition. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. non-compliance with mandatory acquisition procedures. (Para 24)
7. delay in filing writ petition does not bar justice. (Para 25 , 32 , 39)
8. no compensation paid despite possession; acquisition process required. (Para 63 , 64 , 67)
9. court's directive on compensation calculation. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)

JUDGMENT :

(Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.) :

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the acquisition of land admeasuring 6685 sq.mtrs bearing Survey No.432(P), situate at Village Panchpakhadi, Tal. Thane, District Thane (“the Subject Land”) by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (“MSEB”), without complying with due process of law as stipulated under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (“the LAND ACQUISITION ACT ”). A 22/11 KV electricity sub-station and staff quarters (for convenience, collectively referred to as the “Sub-Station”) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (“MSEDCL”), the successor in interest of the MSEB, stand on the Subject Land. The Petitioners allege usurpation of land by reason of compensation not having been paid, and seek application of due process for award of compensation in accordance with law.

2. Petitioner No. 1 to Petitioner No. 4 are siblings and offspring of one Late Shri Damodarprasad Bhadani. Petitioner No. 5 is the widow of the Late Shri Damodarprasad Bhadani. MSEDCL is Respondent No. 1. After the unbundling of multiple roles of the state electricity boards pursuant to the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, the MSEB was disbanded, with the electricity distribution activity in Maharashtra along with attendant assets including the Subject Land, vested in MSEDCL. M/s Unit Arsens Developers, a Partnership Firm, which has developed the land around the Subject Land, and had handed over possession of the Subject Land to MSEB in 1984, is Respondent No. 2. The State of Maharashtra through the Collector, Thane is Respondent No.3.

Petitioners’ Contentions:

3. It is the case of the Petitioners that a much wider parcel of land was earlier owned by the extended Bhadani Family (including the sibling of the Late Damodarprasad Bhadani and his family). Pursuant to a Consent Decree among the extended Bhadani Family dated March 19, 1971 in Suit No. 221 of 1960, the ownership and possession of the Subject Land (as part of a much larger tract of land admeasuring about 55687.78 sq. mtrs.) came to be vested in the Late Shri Damodarprasad Bhadani. The Petitioners have inherited as co-owners, various properties at Thane at Village Panchpakhadi, bearing Survey Numbers 428 to 434 and a part of Survey No.485. This includes the Subject Land [Survey No. 432(P)].

4. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners’ late father and their uncle had engaged Respondent No.2 to develop various parts of the land held by them respectively. The Subject Land is said to abut a slum area, and no effective demarcation and survey of the land had been conducted. The Late Shri Damodarprasad Bhadani is said to have submitted a scheme for housing for weaker sections and by an order of the Competent Authority dated 25th October, 1979, which was further modified vide order dated 27th August, 1980, the Petitioners state, the land owned by them was proposed to be developed, and necessary sanctions from the Thane Municipal Corporation were sought. The Petitioners state that the Bhadani Family granted Respondent No.2 development rights in respect of certain parcels of land, retaining the right to execute conveyance to the society that would eventually be formed by those who acquired the developed properties. The 7/12 extract would show that the Subject Land stands in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top