Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale (Since Decd) – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
W.P. No. 5109 of 2017
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 - Section 5(1) - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Section 41 - Requisition of land - Petitioners sought restoration of land requisitioned for road construction - Court found continued requisition beyond statutory period illegal and quashed it - Respondents must initiate acquisition proceedings within one year or restore land. (Paras 49, 54)
(B) Requisition vs. Acquisition - Court emphasized that requisition is temporary and cannot exceed a reasonable period; the distinction between requisition and acquisition must be maintained. (Paras 42, 44)
(C) Compensation - Court clarified that compensation paid was for requisition, not acquisition, and no acquisition was completed under the law. (Paras 50, 54)
(D) Public Interest - Court balanced petitioners' rights against public interest, allowing time for acquisition before restoration. (Paras 40, 54)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the illegal continuation of requisition for their land beyond the prescribed period, arguing that no valid acquisition occurred under the MHADA Act. (Paras 5, 35)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the requisition was illegal and must be quashed, allowing one year for acquisition proceedings. (Paras 54)
Issues: Whether the properties were acquired under Section 41 of the MHADA Act; legality of continued requisition beyond statutory limits. (Paras 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that requisition cannot continue indefinitely and must comply with statutory limits; the distinction between requisition and acquisition is critical. (Paras 49, 54)
Result: The court quashed the continued requisition and directed the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings or restore the land. (Para 54)
JUDGMENT :
M.S. SONAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. These petitions were admitted on 14 August 2018 and, upon completion of the pleadings, finally heard on 03 January 2025.
3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that common issues of law and fact arise in these three petitions, and therefore, they could be disposed of by common order. Learned counsel for the parties submit that Writ Petition No. 5109 of 2017 may be treated as the “lead petition.”
4. In the lead Writ Petition No. 5109 of 2017, the petitioner has sought the following substantive reliefs:
“(A) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to restore back the vacant and peaceful possession of the petitioner’s said land admeasuring 1,700 sq. mtrs. situated at Survey No. 115/3 of village & Taluka Solapur, District-Solapur, earlier requisitioned for construction of 20 Mere wide road under the said impugned Collector land requisition Order dated 09-07-1987, within a particular time limit.
(B) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to acquire in accordance with law, the peititioner’s said land admeasuring 1,700 sq. mtrs. Situated at Survey No. 115/3 of village & Taluka Solapur, Dist. Solapur, earlier requisitioned for construction of 20 Metre wide road under the said impugned Collector land requisition Order dated 09-07-1987, and pay the compensation to the landholders within a particular time limit.
(C) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a particular time limit, on the said application of the petitioner made for restoring back the lands, within a particular time limit.
(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant appropriate compensation/rental compensation/interest/damages etc. in the matter for the respondents illegal continuance of said requisitioned land after 19 years statutory fixed period i.e. for the period from 09-07-2006 till the period the said land is restored back to the petitioners.”
5. The lead, Writ Petition No. 5109 of 2017, is concerned with property measuring 0.17 Ares, which was surveyed under number 115/3 at Solapur and requisitioned for constructing a 20-meter wide road. Writ Petition No. 5262 of 2017 is concerned with property admeasuring 0.18 Ares surveyed under number 115/1C at Solapur requisitioned for constructing a 20-meter-wide road. Writ Petition No. 5265 of 2017 is concerned with properties at Solapur admeasuring 0.30 Ares surveyed under numbers 115/5 requisitioned for a Nalla and admeasuring 0.11 Ares surveyed under number 115/5 requisition for a 20-meter-wide road. These properties shall hereafter be referred to as the “said properties.” Learned counsel for the parties assured this Court that apart from these minor distinguishing features, there is no significant difference in the facts involved in these three petitions. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that substantially common issues of law and fact arise in these petitions.
6. By an order dated 09 July 1987 issued under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, [Requisition Act], the Collector of Solapur requisitioned the said properties for the construction of the 20-meter-wide road as required by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (“MHADA”), which was then designated as the Special Planning Authority-II for Solapur. This order is Exhibit “A” (pages 13 to 16 of the paper book) of the lead petition.
7. The petitioners have pleaded that a meeting was held by the Collector of Solapur on 20 July 1987, in which the Collector negotiated with the petitioners. At the meeting, the petitioners agreed to accept compensation at a rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per hec
Requisition of land cannot exceed statutory limits and must be quashed if continued illegally; acquisition must follow due process.
Failure to specify public purpose in a land acquisition notification renders it void ab initio.
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
Delay is fatal in questioning land acquisition proceedings, and courts cannot invalidate acquisition which stood concluded due to delay and laches.
Land Acquisition - Compulsory acquisition of land - Quash of order – Acquiescence would be a conduct where a party is sitting by when another is invading his rights and acquiescence must be such as t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
