State Can't Evade Compensation for Land Taken Without Due Process Despite Decades of Delay: Bombay High Court

Mumbai: In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional property rights, the Bombay High Court has mandated the State of Maharashtra to compensate several landowners whose properties were taken over three decades ago without completing the acquisition process or paying compensation. The division bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan held that depriving citizens of their property without the authority of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution, constituting a "continuing wrong" for which the defence of delay and laches cannot be invoked by the State.

Case Background

The Court delivered a common judgment in a batch of petitions, led by Mrs. Sumitra Shridhar Khane (WP No. 4987 of 2022). The petitioners owned lands in Village Vhanur, Kolhapur, which were identified in 1990 for acquisition to rehabilitate persons affected by the Dudhganga Irrigation Project.

Key facts include: - Petitioners handed over possession of their lands around September 1990, often based on affidavits stating they were doing so voluntarily for an "appropriate lawful price." - Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("1894 Act") were issued in December 1990 and March 1991, respectively. - A land acquisition award was published on February 28, 1992, for several lands in the village, but crucially, the petitioners' lands were not included in this award, and consequently, no compensation was paid to them. - Despite the incomplete acquisition, the State authorities mutated the land records in favour of the Collector and subsequently allotted the petitioners' lands to project-affected persons. - The petitioners, described as hailing from rural areas and not well-versed in their legal rights, approached the authorities for compensation much later, around 2021, leading to the present writ petitions.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Counsel (Mr. Nitin Deshpande): - Argued that taking possession without completing acquisition and paying compensation is a blatant violation of Article 300A (right to property). - Contended that the failure to pay compensation constitutes a "continuing cause of action," meaning the defence of delay and laches is inapplicable. - Relied on Supreme Court judgments like Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh , Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC , and Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh , which held that the State cannot exploit citizens' illiteracy or lack of means and must adhere to due process. - Pointed out that the "voluntary surrender" affidavit itself indicated an expectation of payment.

Respondents' Counsel (Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP): - Primarily argued that the petitions were barred by gross delay and laches, having been filed over 30 years after possession was taken. - Cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar to support the argument on delay. - Contended that the petitioners had voluntarily surrendered their lands and, as per a 2010 Government Resolution, could be deemed to have waived their right to compensation after a specified period.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court firmly rejected the State's arguments, grounding its decision in constitutional principles and established legal precedent.

Sanctity of Article 300A: The Court underscored that Article 300A guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. This requires adherence to due process, which implicitly includes the payment of fair compensation when property is expropriated.

> "In a society governed by the rule of law, there can be no discrimination... Likes should be treated alike... It is the solemn duty and responsibility of the State to uniformly apply the law... Any breach of such fundamental mandates has no place in a civilized society." (Para 1)

Continuing Wrong and Delay: The bench held that the State's failure to pay compensation after taking possession constituted a continuing wrong.

> "This is clearly a case which not only depicts the breach of the petitioner’s constitutional rights... but also a case of continuing wrong, as the illegality of an expropriation of petitioner’s land is compounded on day to day basis, by non-payment of compensation." (Para 29)

Relying heavily on Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra , the Court ruled that delay and laches cannot be raised by the State in cases of a continuing cause of action, especially when fundamental constitutional rights are breached and the circumstances "shock the judicial conscience."

> "The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation; there cannot be a 'limitation' to doing justice." (Quoting Sukh Dutt Ratra , Para 18 of SC judgment; cited in Para 24 of HC judgment)

The Court distinguished State of Maharashtra v. Digambar , noting it involved land donated under a specific scheme, unlike the present case involving flawed acquisition proceedings.

State's Duty Towards Citizens: The judgment emphasized the State's heightened responsibility, particularly towards citizens who may be unaware of their rights due to illiteracy or lack of resources.

> "It is difficult to accept... that a continuing wrong would cease to exist... especially... where in regard to our brother and sister citizens hailing from the rural area, neither there is legal literacy nor the means to approach the Court. The law cannot be applied in such manner to mean that their rights would be regarded as dead rights." (Para 30)

Voluntary Surrender Not Waiver of Compensation: The Court noted that the affidavits signed by the petitioners explicitly mentioned accepting compensation ("appropriate lawful price"), negating any argument of complete waiver.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the State to treat the petitioners' lands as cases of deemed acquisition under the 1894 Act.

Key Orders: 1. The Collector (Land Acquisition) must compute compensation based on the date possession was taken (around September 19, 1990, for the lead petitioner, and relevant dates for others). 2. Compensation must include all consequential benefits under the 1894 Act (solatium, interest, etc.), calculated until the date of actual payment. 3. Payment must be disbursed within four months. 4. The State was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to each petitioner due to the patent breach of their constitutional rights.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to the State of its obligation to strictly follow the due process of law, including timely payment of compensation, when acquiring private property for public purposes. It reinforces that constitutional property rights under Article 300A cannot be easily bypassed, and the State cannot take refuge behind delays caused by its own inaction, particularly when dealing with potentially vulnerable citizens.