Bombay High Court: In a writ petition disclosing a “most disturbing state of affairs” in land acquisition where the possession was taken decades ago for a public project, but statutory steps of award, payment, and deposit were not completed, the Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar*, JJ., treating the matter as a test case illustrative of a larger systemic failure in land acquisition proceedings, held that there is no concept in constitutional or statutory law of “acquisition without compensation due to administrative lapse”, and continued failure amounts to a continuing wrong and a continuing breach of constitutional duty. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to complete the acquisition proceedings and pay up the compensation within 8 weeks.
Background
On 2 February 1996, the petitioners’ lands were taken into possession by Respondents 6 and 7 for construction of a village tank which was completed in the same year, and the land was being utilised for public purpose. The possession was taken by private negotiation without advance payment of 80 per cent of the estimated value. A proposal for acquisition was forwarded on 10 December 1996, and a joint measurement was carried out and reported on 5 November 1997. Thereafter, no further steps whatsoever were taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and no award was passed and not even rental compensation was given to the petitioners. The petitioners repeatedly requested the authorities to complete the acquisition proceedings and ultimately a writ petition was filed.
After the Court issued a notice, a notification under Section 11, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) was issued on 3 August 2018 and individual notices were served on the petitioners. A spot inspection was conducted and a declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act was published in the Gazette. Nevertheless, no award was declared within a reasonable time, and no compensation was determined or paid. When the petitioners submitted a representation dated 22 September 2025 seeking completion of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation along with statutory interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act, only then were they informed that an award had been declared on 23 November 2020. The petitioners obtained the copy of the award but even then, no amount of compensation was offered, paid or deposited in their favour or any other affected landowners, breaching the mandate of Section 77(1) of the 2013 Act.
The AGP did not dispute entitlement to compensation and acknowledging the prolonged delay in paying compensation, admitted that the amount of Rs 31.91 lakh was not received from the proposing authority.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that a large number of cases disclosed unjustified delay of nearly three decades in completing land acquisition proceedings even after taking possession of the petitioners’ lands which resulted not only in grave prejudice to the landowners but also in substantial and avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer by way of interest and escalated compensation under the 2013 Act. The Court remarked that the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, should consider the manner in which the statutory duties are discharged in land acquisition cases and clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on individual culpability, but accountability for such prolonged dereliction of statutory duty was essential to ensure that similar situations did not recur in future.
The Court noted that in most of land acquisition matters, lands were taken, projects completed, yet acquisition proceedings did not take to their lawful conclusion, awards were not passed or, if passed, compensation was not paid. Therefore, the landowners were compelled to approach the courts seeking writs of mandamus for enforcement of what was a basic statutory and constitutional obligation of the State. The Court emphasised that the State cannot be permitted to plead its own inaction, inefficiency, or inter-departmental delays as defence. The Court noted Article 300-A of the Constitution and explained that the authority of law did not simply end with taking possession, but it also included the lawful determination and payment of compensation. The Court observed that there is no concept in constitutional or statutory law of “acquisition without compensation due to administrative lapse”, and continued failure amounts to a continuing wrong and a continuing breach of constitutional duty.
While conscious of the limits of its constitutional role, the Court opined that where statutory duties are repeatedly breached on a large scale, resulting in continuing illegality, injustice, and massive loss to the public exchequer, the Court would be failing in its obligation if it confined itself to deciding individual writ petitions in isolation. The Court observed that issuance of structured, time-bound directions to ensure performance of existing statutory duties fell squarely within the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court further opined that the problem is not absence of law but persistent non-implementation, which requires a focused, mission-mode administrative response to identify all pending cases and take them to lawful conclusion by passing awards, paying compensation, or depositing the same with the competent authority where direct payment is not possible.
The Court directed the adoption of a comprehensive, statewide mechanism under the supervision of the Chief Secretary or a senior officer of equivalent rank nominated by him, with:
1) a State-level steering committee comprising senior officers from the Department of Revenue, Finance, Law, Judiciary and major acquiring bodies and a designated State Nodal Officer; and
2) district-level committees headed by Collectors and involving the Land Acquisition Officers concerned, representatives of acquiring authorities and treasury or accounts officials.
The Court further directed the:
1) Compilation of a complete, district-wise acquisition ledger recording possession dates, award status, compensation payment or deposit status, amounts, acquiring body, and present status, including cases with title or apportionment disputes or non-traceability of landowners.
2) Categorisation of cases for resolution. Where possession has been taken but no award is passed, compensation must be determined within strict, reasonable timelines, with priority to the oldest matters. Where an award exists but compensation remains unpaid, payment shall be made immediately with statutory interest, or, if direct payment is not possible due to disputes or other legal impediments, the amount shall be deposited with the competent authority in accordance with the governing statute; and where litigation is pending, the amount may be deposited before the Court concerned.
3) Outreach and public notices, with assistance through legal services and para-legal volunteers, giving special attention to agriculturists, illiterate and rural landowners.
The Court highlighted that excuses about funds not received from proposing or acquiring departments would not justify non-payment or non-deposit as landowners could not be made to suffer because of internal administrative issues. On accountability, the Court noted that public funds were squandered due to negligence, apathy, or indifference and it was within the Court’s constitutional domain to direct the State to fix responsibility and act in accordance with law. The Court opined that the State must undertake internal audit where substantial loss occurred due to unexplained, unjustifiable delays in passing awards or paying compensation, consider appropriate departmental proceedings and, wherever permissible, recovery of loss while following due process. The Court also highlighted the need to make rules or procedures for recovery from institutions for whom land is acquired.
For effective implementation, the Court considered it appropriate to retain supervisory jurisdiction by adopting the mechanism of continuing mandamus and directed for periodic compliance reports by the Chief Secretary, indicating identified, resolved and pending cases, amounts paid or deposited, and steps taken towards fixing accountability. The Court clarified that these directions were not judicial legislation or encroachment but merely required the State to perform duties already imposed by law in a structured, time-bound manner.
The Court noted that possession was taken in 1996, the award was passed on 23 November 2020, but no compensation was paid. The Court observed that the respondents were statutorily bound not only to pay the compensation as per the award, but also to pay interest in terms of Section 80 of the 2013 Act, since possession was taken prior to payment of compensation. The Court remarked that the officers entrusted with the responsibility of protecting citizens’ rights have behaved as if they are masters rather than servants of the public, and such indifference not only violated statutory provisions but also struck at the heart of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The Court, while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondents to complete the land acquisition proceedings by making payment of compensation to the petitioners and all other affected landowners within 8 weeks, strictly in accordance with the award dated 23 November 2020 and the provisions of the 2013 Act, including payment of interest as payable under Section 80. The Court further directed the Collector to ensure compliance, file a detailed compliance report, and deposit Rs 35 lakh in the Court within 4 weeks. The matter is placed for first compliance on 10 March 2026.
[Shahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 13381 of 2025, decided on 17-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Tushar Shinde h/f Mr. C.H. Shinde, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S.B. Narwade, AGP.