High Court Condemns 36-Year Delay in Compensation Payment for Land Acquisition. Bombay High Court reprimands MHADA and State Government for failing to compensate a property owner for over three decades, declaring the delay a violation of constitutional rights.


Summary of Judgement

The Bombay High Court,  addressed a severe delay in compensating the petitioner for the acquisition of his property. The petitioner’s land was acquired by MHADA in 1988, but despite 36 years passing, no compensation has been paid. The court criticized MHADA and the State Government for this unjust delay, which violates Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution. The court directed the authorities to expedite the process and ensure compensation is determined and paid promptly.

Background

  • Petitioner: Yusuf Yunus Kantharia, owner of 979 sq. meters of land in Dharavi, Mumbai.
  • Respondents: Bombay Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, State of Maharashtra.

Acquisition and Delay

  • The land was acquired on July 14, 1988, by MHADA under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
  • No Compensation Paid: Despite the land being taken over 36 years ago, the petitioner has not received any compensation.
  • Legal Proceedings: The petitioner challenged the non-payment of compensation, resulting in the current case.

Court's Observations

  • The court found the delay in payment of compensation to be "callous and insensitive," and a violation of constitutional rights.
  • Failure of MHADA: The court noted MHADA’s inability to trace original acquisition records and pass an award for compensation.
  • Violation of Constitutional Rights: The court held that the delay violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life), and 300-A (Right to Property) of the Constitution.

Court’s Directions

  • The court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) of MHADA to trace the records and determine the compensation without further delay.
  • The court emphasized that the compensation process should be completed within a time-bound schedule.

Conclusion

  • The court refrained from quashing the acquisition, considering the public interest involved but condemned the authorities for their inordinate and insensitive delay in compensating the petitioner.

The Judgement

Case Title: Yusuf Yunus Kantharia Versus Bombay Housing and Area Development Authority and Others

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 4

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 700 OF 2003

Date of Decision: 2024-08-01