Facts
This case relates to an issue of land dispute with respect to Survey No.8/1 situated in the village Deolali, Nashik District, measuring 1 hectare and 38 Ares (13,800 sq.m). In 197, the Nashik Road-Deolali Municipal Council (now Nashik Municipal Corporation) passed a resolution that this land be reserved for public purpose (to construct high school and a playground and development plan) under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The Council later took possession of the 37 Ares (3,700 sq.m) portion without instituting formal proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In 1978, a notification was issued for the acquisition of only 1hectare and 1 Ares of land, leaving out the disputed part of 3,700 sq.m.
The ownership and possession of the said land was disputed over the next decade. The original owner of the land instituted several writ petitions before the Bombay High Court claiming ownership. The High Court held in 1998 that the reservation has lapsed and the owner was allowed to apply for permissions to develop the land. However, the permission was refused by the Corporation on the ground that it has possession of the land. The owner’s appeals were dismissed but the State was directed to consider compensation either in cash or through Transferable Development Rights.
In 2011, the appellant Pradyumna Mukund Kokil purchased the disputed 3,700 sq.m from the original owner. After repeated inaction by authorities, he sought the acquisition of the already utilised land. The High Court in 2013 directed the government to acquire it but allowed the Corporation to argue adverse possession (which was later revoked by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3874/2015). Acquisition finally occurred in 2017 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR), awarding INR 8.69 crore. The appellant did not accepted this sought higher compensation and rental relief for decades of unauthorised occupation.
The Nagpur Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority later enhanced compensation to INR 20.20 crore with additional rental damages of INR 238.87 crore for the unauthorised occupation. The High Court reversed this, restoring the initial award of 2017. The present Civil Appeal challenged the reversal.
Issues
- Whether the enhanced compensation of INR 20.20 crore as determined by the Resettlement Authority under Section 26 of the 2013 Act was justified.
- Whether the appellant was entitled to rental compensation for the corporation’s alleged unauthorised possession of the land since 1972.
Legal Provisions
- Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, makes provision for assessing market value, on the basis of average sale prices of similar lands within the vicinity in the previous three years.
- Section 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, allows equitable and just compensation on grounds not expressly covered under prior clauses.
Arguments Advanced
Pradumna Mukund Kokol (Appellant)
The Appellant claimed that the Nagpur Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority correctly applied Section 26 of the 1023 Land Acquisition Act by using nearby sale deeds to assess fair market value, fixing compensation at INR 26,814/ sq.m, a total of INR 20.20 crores. He argued that the High Court wrongly replaced this statutory method with ready reckoner rates. He sought additional rental compensation under Section 28(7) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, for the corporation’s unauthorised use of the land since 1972. He requested the removal of adverse remarks and the cost of INR 10 lakh imposed by the High Court.
Nashik Municipal Corporation (Respondents)
The respondents defended the original award of INR 8.69 crore, saying it relied on valid ready reckoner data and that the appellant’s sale comparisons were inappropriate. They contended that the 2013 Act does not authorize rental compensation unless explicit unlawful possession is proved. The respondents stated that the original owner remained in possession of the land until 2011, disapproving of any claim of unlawful usage.
Analysis
The Supreme Court indicated and ordered that Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, is mandatory for evaluating market value solely based on genuine sales in a specific location and not in accordance with the administrative reckoner rates. The Supreme Court determined that the Nagpur Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority was correct in applying the statutory formula and will by awarding approximately INR 20.20 crore as the enhanced compensation. The Supreme Court explained that these types of claims require proof that possession was fully unlawful, and that there was full unlawful deprivation of possession with respect to the acquiring authority, prior to the acquisition. That is, the possession remained with the original owner until 2011. The Appellant could make a claim of equitable interest only within mesne profits from the time of purchase and after the final compensation was paid.
Judgment
The Supreme Court declared that the enhanced compensation of INR 20,20,11,533 with interest of 9% per annum for one year and 15% thereafter until full payment. The court refused to grant rental compensation for the time period in 1972, as possession of the land was not unlawful until 2011. The appellant was awarded interest at a rate of 8% per annum on INR 1.17 crore (the purchase price) from July 29, 2011, to May 8, 2017, as equitable mesne profits. The Adverse remarks and INR 10 Lakh cost imposed by the High Court were expunged and waived.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in this case partially allowed the appeal by restoring the enhanced compensation of INR 20.20 crore awarded by the Nagpur Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority. It denied rental compensation prior to the appellant’s 2011 purchase, as possession then was with the former owner. It stated that the appellant is to be given 8% interest on the purchase price and vacated all adverse remarks and costs awarded by the High Court. This judgment affirms the statutory compliance under the RFCTLARR Act, stressing fairness and equity in compensation for land acquisition.
Click here to read more: PRADYUMNA MUKUND KOKIL VS THE NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY I Sharan
