Land Acquisition Lapses For Non-Compliance With Timeline U/S 6 Land Acquisition Act: Bombay High Court While Shifting Notification Date To Protect Land Already Put To Public Use
The Court held that while land acquisition had lapsed by operation of law, constitutional courts retain the power under Article 226 to balance equities and mould appropriate relief.
Justice Manish Pitale, Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that land acquisition proceedings concerning land in Borla and Deonar, Mumbai, possession of which was taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai way back in 1960, stood vitiated because the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued beyond the mandatory one-year period from the notification under Section 4.
The Bench was dealing with a writ petition, the fourth in a chain of litigation spanning over five decades, filed by the landowners challenging an order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejecting their claim that the acquisition had lapsed. The notification under Section 4 was issued on December 8, 1999 and published on December 23, 1999, while the declaration under Section 6 followed only on January 5, 2001, published later that month, undisputedly beyond the one-year window.
However, since the unacquired land had since been utilised for municipal schools, roads and other public infrastructure, the Court declined to direct its return to the petitioners. Instead, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a power the Supreme Court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka (2025) 7 SCC 580 clarified rests only with constitutional courts and not the SLAO, the Bench shifted the deemed date of the Section 4 notification to August 26, 2011, the date on which the present petition was filed, so as to balance the interests of the landowners against the hardship that return of the land would cause the public.
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed, “Keeping in mind the importance of said right to property, the consequence of lapsing of acquisition would be that the respondent municipal corporation will have to return the said unacquired land to the petitioners. But, since the said land has been already utilized for public purpose, it would be a drastic consequence and it would also cause grave inconvenience to the public at large. In such situations, the Supreme Court, in its various judgements, has held that instead of giving the consequential direction for returning the subject unacquired land to the land owners / claimants, the Court, by adopting a balanced approach, can direct shifting of date of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act”.
Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf appeared for the petitioners and Senior Advocate Ram Apte appeared for the respondent.
The Court was critical of the municipal corporation's conduct, terming its reliance on Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 a “red herring” raised for the first time in oral arguments, and observed that the landowners' right to property under Article 300-A had remained unremedied since 1960.
“…It is significant to note that such lapsing is by operation of statute and law itself and therefore, no order of any Court can undo what has happened by operation of law…the Latin Maxim, dura lex sed lex meaning ‘the law is hard but it is the law’, applies to the facts of the present case”, the Bench noted.
“The manner in which the respondent municipal corporation and the State authorities have proceeded in the present case, demonstrates that the valuable right of the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, has been violated. Despite possession of the said unacquired land having taken in the year 1960, compensation has not been paid till date…”, the Bench said.
The SLAO has been directed to pass a fresh award within three months, treating August 26, 2011 as the notification date for computing compensation, with amounts already deposited in Court to be adjusted against the final award.
Cause Title: Manak Yeshwant Patil and others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others (Writ Petition No. 1755 of 2011)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, Malaika Castellino, Mehul Shah and Chaitali Jadhav, Advocates.
Respondent: Ram Apte, Senior Advocate, Anuja Tirmali, Komal Punjabi, Usha Rahi, AGP.