Compensation disputes arising from mutual agreements under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act cannot invoke Section 34 for reference to civil court.

JUDGMENT :

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. This Petition, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a decision by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (“MIDC”), Respondent No. 2, communicated on December 8, 2017 and on April 13, 2018 (collectively, “Impugned Order”) refusing to refer the dispute raised by the Petitioners to the jurisdictional civil court under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

3. The Petition prays that the Impugned Order be quashed and set aside. The Petition seeks a direction that the objections of the Petitioners be referred to the jurisdictional civil court under Section 34 of the Act. Another prayer seeks the appointment of a Court Commissioner to work out correct characterisation of the Petitioners’ lands. Finally, a prayer seeks a declaration that the compensation ought to be computed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

4. With effect from July 3, 2019, the Act was amended to provide for linkages with the 2013 Act. Consequently, under Section 33(5), the principles of computing compensation as provided for in the 2013 Act would apply to acquisitions under the Act. Likewise, Section 34 has been amended to provide for references of disputes over compensation to be made to the “Authority” (as defined in the 2013 Act) instead of references to the “Court” (as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). While the prayers and pleadings in the Petition refer to the civil court, for all purposes of this judgment, the term “Authority” is used, wherever necessary, in relation to the forum to which a reference may be made under Section 34 of the Act.

Core Issue:

5. At the heart of the Petition lies the grievance that the classification of the Petitioners’ lands as seasonally-irrigated is wrong and it ought to be categorised as perennially-irrigated land. It is Petitioners’ grievance that such classification has significantly injured their interests, since under their agreement with the State, they are being paid an amount of Rs. 52.5 lakhs per acre (payable for seasonally-irrigated land) as against their entitlement to Rs. 70 lakhs per acre (payable for perennially-irrigated land). The acquisition of the Petitioners’ lands were by mutual consent under agreements, which had provided for a framework of amount payable, the only variation being linked to the nature of land.

Factual Matrix:

6. The following overview of the factual matrix would be in order:

(a) The Government of Maharashtra, Respondent No. 1, issued a notification on December 6, 2007, declaring an area of 146 Hectares and 35 Ares and another 202 Hectares and 17 Ares in Talegaon Village as an industrial area under the Act, initiating the statutory process for acquisition.

(b) On February 7, 2008, the MIDC authorized the Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik, Respondent No. 3 to commence the land acquisition proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid notification.

(c) Eventually, on December 17, 2013, agreements were executed between the Petitioners and the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 33(2) of the Act, for acquisition of various parcels of the notified land. The agreements provided for a framework for computing compensation payable. The amount payable for non-irrigated land was stated to be Rs.35 Lakhs per acre. For seasonally-irrigated land and perennially-irrigated land, such amount would be increased to 1.5 times and 2 times respectively - Rs. 52.50 Lakhs for seasonally-irrigated land; and Rs. 70 Lakhs for perennially-irrigated land. The terms and conditions included a stipulation that the landowner would not initiate any proceedings to air any grievance seeking enhanced compensation for the land.

(d) Different awards were passed on different dates (“Consent Awards”) for various lands owned by the