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
JK Tyre Boosts Commercial Vehicle Presence in Maharashtra with New Brand Shop
JK Tyre & Industries expands its retail footprint with the launch of its 12th brand shop for commercial vehicles in Maharashtra
Developer Arrested for ₹4.6 Crore Cheating Scandal in Mumbai Real Estate
A Mumbai-based developer has been arrested for cheating a realtor of ₹4.6 crore. The developer had failed to fulfill his commitment to remove illegal encroachments and develop a plot.
Bollywood Star Ronit Roy Buys Luxury Apartment in Mumbai's Versova for ₹18.94 Crore
Mumbai real estate: Ronit Roy and wife Neelam Roy purchase a 4,258 sq ft apartment in Versova area of Mumbai for ₹18.94 crore, according to property registration documents.
Prajesh Bhatia: The Rising Star in India's Luxury Real Estate Market
Prajesh Bhatia's journey from an admirer to a key player in India's luxury real estate market, inspired by Ryan Serhant's innovative branding and strategies, is nothing short of inspiring.
Nifty Realty Plummets 6.5% in Largest Single-Day Decline in 7 Months
Real estate stocks suffered the most in the recent market crash on January 13, with all 10 components of the Nifty Realty index experiencing significant losses.
MHADA Lottery 2025: Results for 2,147 Affordable Homes to Be Announced Today
MHADA lottery 2025: Results for 2,147 affordable homes to be announced today. Stay tuned for the latest updates on the lottery results and how to check them.