Bombay HC Directs MHADA and Solapur Corporation to Pay ₹1.5 Lakh for Unlawful Land Retention
The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1.5 lakh on the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Solapur Municipal Corporation for retaining land without proper acquisition for 37 years. The bench emphasized the importance o
Bombay High CourtMhadaSolapur Municipal CorporationLand AcquisitionRequisitionReal Estate MaharashtraJan 07, 2025
This sum totals ₹1.5 lakh.
The lands were initially requisitioned in 1987 under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 by MHADA, which was acting as a special planning authority for the area at the time, under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).
A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain clarified that the authorities are free to initiate proceedings to acquire the petitioners' properties under the relevant laws governing compulsory acquisition.
The High Court was hearing three petitions filed by landowners – the late Dnyaneshwar Bhosale, Tukaram Bhosale, 66, and the late Vithal Bhosale – who contended that the State Government failed to issue the necessary notification to acquire their lands after issuing a requisition order in 1987.
On August 24, 1987, the State published a notice under the MHADA Act proposing to acquire the lands for constructing a road and widening a nalla (drain).
However, the State did not issue any notification as required under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act to finalize the acquisition.
The landowners had agreed to receive ₹1 lakh per hectare as compensation for the requisition.
However, they argued that under Section 9(1A) of the Requisition Act, requisition could not continue beyond 24 years, making the possession unlawful after July 2011.
The State contended that since it had taken possession of the properties under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, there was no further requirement to issue a final notification under the MHADA Act.
The Court, however, emphasized the distinction between a 'notice' and a 'notification' under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act.
It observed that the 1987 notice merely proposed acquisition and sought objections but did not decide to acquire the land.
Without a notification under Section 41(1), the Court held that the State's claim of acquisition could not stand.
The Court also reiterated that requisition is a temporary measure and cannot be extended indefinitely.
Noting the expiry of the requisition period in July 2011, it declared the continued possession of the land 'illegal'.
The bench stated, 'Because the petitioners' properties are now used as a road and for the widening of a nalla, the interests of justice would require that the respondents be granted one year to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings and acquire the petitioners' properties if they do not wish to restore the properties to the petitioners.'
The Court imposed costs on MHADA and the Solapur Municipal Corporation for failing to adhere to the law.
This decision underscores the requirement for authorities to follow due process and protect the rights of landowners, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in administrative actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Bombay High Court impose costs on MHADA and the Solapur Municipal Corporation?
The Bombay High Court imposed costs on MHADA and the Solapur Municipal Corporation for retaining land without proper acquisition for 37 years, which was deemed unlawful after July 2011.
What was the initial purpose of the land requisition in 1987?
The land was requisitioned in 1987 to construct a road and widen a nalla (drain).
What is the difference between a 'notice' and a 'notification' under the MHADA Act?
A 'notice' under the MHADA Act proposes acquisition and seeks objections, while a 'notification' finalizes the acquisition and is required to complete the process.
What did the landowners agree to as compensation for the requisition?
The landowners agreed to receive ₹1 lakh per hectare as compensation for the requisition.
What is the significance of the Court's decision in protecting landowners' rights?
The Court's decision underscores the importance of authorities following due process and protecting the rights of landowners, emphasizing transparency and accountability in administrative actions.
Related News Articles
Maharashtra Apartment Act: Proposed Amendments Set to be Submitted Soon
The Maharashtra government is set to submit proposed amendments to the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promoters and Flat Purchase and Construction) Act, 1960. These amendments aim to address various issues faced by flat buyers and promoter
Devendra Fadnavis Sworn in as Maharashtra's 21st Chief Minister; Shinde and Pawar as Deputies
Mumbai - Devendra Fadnavis was sworn in as the 21st Chief Minister of Maharashtra, with Ajit Pawar and Eknath Shinde taking the oath as Deputy Chief Ministers.
NRI Investment Surge: Transforming Indian Real Estate
Explore the booming NRI investment trend in Indian real estate, with a focus on Chandigarh Tricity's unique appeal and technological advancements.
Union Budget 2025: Real Estate Sector Hopes and Expectations
As the country gears up for the Union Budget 2025, the real estate sector is eager for significant reforms and incentives from Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.
Mumbai Police Finally Nab Main Suspect in Saif Ali Khan Attack
Mumbai: After two misidentifications, the main accused in the attack on Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan has been arrested from Thane. He has confessed to the crime, the Mumbai police said on Sunday.
Government Approves Rs 45 Billion JNPA-Chowk Highway Project
The government has confirmed a major infrastructure project, allocating Rs 45 billion for the construction of the JNPA-Chowk Highway. This initiative aims to bolster economic growth and improve connectivity in the region.