Legal Reference Library

High Court of Bombay Ramesh Narayan Patil and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others Land Acquisition Deposit of compensation amount in government treasury is not equivalent to compensation paid to landowners/persons interested Instant Petition by Petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of owner of land situated at Talavali village, Taluka and District Thane within municipal limits of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation are seeking declaration to effect that, acquisition proceedings in respect of said land, resulting in award dated 31st August, 1984 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned Senior Counsel for Corporation, land owner having refused to accept amount of compensation, benefit of Section 24 of Act of 2013 will not be available to Petitioners. Issue involved is whether offer by Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation amount to land...

Setting aside the orders of National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions which had held that a complainant land owner who entered into an agreement with a builder for construction and sharing flats, is not a ‘consumer’ since there was an intention to sell them and let them on rent and earn profit, the Supreme Court (BUNGA DANIEL BABU VS. M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS) held that such an approach is erroneous. The District forum had allowed the complaint of the Land owner against the builder. On appeal by the Builder, the State Commission observed that the agreement was entered into by the complainant for more than two plots and there was an intention to sell them and let them on rent and earn profit, and the transaction was meant for a commercial purpose. The claims of land owner was dismissed on the grounds that he is not a ‘consumer’. This order of State Commission was affirmed by the National Commission. The complainant approached the Supreme Court. Apex Court Bench co...

Full Bench of Bombay High Court has held that if the possession is taken before the Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act is published and/or before the award is passed, the land­ owner would been titled for interest as per Section 34 necessarily from the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the said Act, except in cases where the possession is taken in accordance with Section 17 of the said Act, and in that situation only, the provision of Section 34 of the said Act shall start operating from the date of possession. Full Bench comprising of Justices B.P. Dharmadhikari, R.K.Deshpande and P.N Deshmukh answering the reference made to it, also summarised the position of law in this regard. The Bench observed as follows. If the possession of the land under acquisition is taken under Section 16 of the said Act i.e. after an award is made by the Collector under Section 11 therein,the interest would be payable under Section 34 from the date of passing of the award The interest a...

The Supreme Court has held that a landholder’s right to be fairly compensated for his land acquired by the government cannot be compromised as right to property has long been recognised a human right. A bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy said the government cannot undermine the land owner’s right by not granting fair compensation to them. The court said it is constitutional obligation to ensure that a land loser is adequately compensated. “The right to property having been elevated to the status of human rights, it is inherent in every individual, and thus has to be venerably acknowledged and can, by no means, be belittled or trivialised by adopting an unconcerned and nonchalant disposition by anyone, far less the state, after compulsorily acquiring his land by invoking an expropriatory legislative mechanism,” the bench said. Article referred: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/515900/sc-landholders-right-fair-share.html