TITLE: LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2644 OF 2016
DECIDED ON: 6 SEPTEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE SURYA KANT, JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
Justice Surya Kant, Justice J.K. Maheshwari states “There is a distinction, a true and concrete distinction, between the principle of “eminent domain” and “police power” of the State. Under certain circumstances, the police power of the State may be used temporarily, to take possession of property but the present case clearly shows that neither of the said powers have been exercised. A question then arises with respect to the authority or power under which the State entered upon the land. It is evident that the act of the State amounts to encroachment, in exercise of “absolute power” which in common parlance is also called abuse of power or use of muscle power. To further clarify this position, it must be noted that the authorities have treated the landowner as a “subject” of medieval India, but not as a “citizen” under our Constitution.” Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Surya Kant set a precedent emphasising the concepts of prompt compensation, administrative discretion, and the complex nature of land acquisition issues in addition to offering particular guidelines for the current case.
Brief Facts:
The land purchase for the street scheme by the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) was the reason for the civil appeal that was filed before the Supreme Court of India. The proprietor filed a lawsuit, demanding compensation and a different site, because he was unhappy with the acquisition. The writ suit was partially granted by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, which directed officials to examine the options of either awarding an alternative site or calculating compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). The application of Section 11-A of the LA Act, NIT’s rejection of a different plot, and the postponed payment determination were the main points of contention in the appeal.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
The Court examined the intricacies of land acquisition with great care, paying close attention to how Section 11-A of the LA Act was applied, how NIT decided not to grant an alternative plot, and how this caused a delay in calculating compensation. Citing legal precedents and eminent domain principles, the Court upheld the High Court’s ruling about the acquisition proceedings’ lapse, emphasising the importance of following procedural procedures.
While acknowledging administrative discretion, the Court abstained from interfering in the NIT’s rejection of a different plot, highlighting the importance of openness in such determinations. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) was instructed by the judgement to revaluate compensation, taking into account the market value as of the date of the previous award. Notably, the Court stressed the value of a prompt resolution in land acquisition proceedings by acknowledging the landowner’s right to damages for the delay.
In an attempt to accelerate the resolution process, the Court set a deadline for SLAO to finish determining compensation. Importantly, the verdict made clear that other landowners did not have a generic right to request redetermination of compensation under the same notification, highlighting the fact that the decision was case-specific.
Essentially, the Court’s thorough investigation and decision-making achieved a careful equilibrium between the State’s land-acquisition interests and individual rights.
“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 fall into a 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- Komal Goswami
