Mere Absence Of Objection Or Consent Cannot Constitute "Authority Of Law" Under Article 300-A Constitution For Taking Private Land: Bombay High Court
The Bench said that the judgment in Digambar does not invariably bar claims over land used for road without acquisition; directs state to initiate Acquisition under 2013 Act.
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench has held that a landowner's silence while the State built a road on his land cannot be treated as authority of law for deprivation of property. The Court said that, without material showing lawful surrender, transfer or consent to permanent deprivation, absence of objection does not satisfy Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The Bench held that State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 386 cannot be read to mean that delay must invariably defeat an Article 300-A claim where the deprivation is continuing and without authority of law. It directed the State to initiate acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
A Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Rajnish R. Vyas observed, “…we hold that the respondents have used the petitioner’s land for a public purpose without demonstrating any authority of law by which the petitioner or his predecessor in title was deprived of the property. Mere absence of objection, in the absence of material establishing lawful surrender, transfer or consent to permanent deprivation, cannot constitute authority of law within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India”.
Advocate A. R. Ingole appeared for the petitioner and P. P. Pendke, AGP appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner's father owned land in Kolara (Rith), Chimur, Chandrapur, over which the Satara-Masal road was built in 1979 without acquisition, while the father died in 1998. The petitioner challenged a communication dated December 15, 2025, by which the Zilla Parishad's Executive Engineer rejected his representation for compensation on the ground of delay exceeding 20 years, relying on Digambar.
The State argued that the father had voluntarily allowed the work, which was undertaken as drought relief, and that delay and laches were unexplained. It contended that Digambar, a three-judge Bench ruling, rendered the later two-judge decisions per incuriam. The petitioner relied on official communications, including RTI material, indicating that compensation was payable.
The Court noted the State produced no document showing written consent. It held that the law recognises compulsory acquisition or acquisition by agreement, and that the agreement must be in writing. On Digambar, it clarified that it was not declaring a larger Bench decision per incuriam, and that Digambar continues to govern discretionary relief under Article 226 where delay, laches or acquiescence justify refusal. It noted that Sukh Dutt Ratra & Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2022) 7 SCC 508 had considered Digambar and still granted relief.
It rejected the State's "nil compensation" argument based on K.T. Plantation and held that the obligation to pay just and fair compensation is a constitutional consequence of compulsory deprivation.
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the respondents to initiate acquisition under the 2013 Act, including a Section 11 preliminary notification, and to complete it within a stipulated period. The competent authority must specifically consider the consequences of the extraordinary delay while fixing compensation. Disbursement among legal heirs of the original owner will follow the law. No costs were awarded.
Cause Title: Shekhar Ghanshyam Janbandhu v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:12657-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: A. R. Ingole, Advocate.
Respondent: P. P. Pendke, AGP, Abhishek Rao, Advocate, Gayatri Reve.