Bombay High Court Directs MHADA to Pay Compensation for Land Acquired 36 Years Ago Without Award — Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. Non-payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition under Section 93(5) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, held arbitrary and unconstitutional; court orders payment with interest at 9% per annum from date of possession.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 1072
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Yusuf Yunus Kantharia, was the owner of a plot of land measuring 979 sq. metres in Dharavi, Mumbai, along with a chawl known as Kantharia Chawl. By an order dated 14th July 1988, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) acquired the property under Section 93(5) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act). Possession of the property was taken on 5th June 1989 and handed over to MHADA. However, despite the passage of 36 years, no compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2003 seeking compensation. The court noted that the respondents filed an affidavit in 2003 stating that records were untraceable and that they would attempt to trace them or determine compensation, but no further action was taken. The court observed that the failure to pay compensation violated Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner within eight weeks, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession (5th June 1989) until the date of payment. The SLAO was directed to determine the compensation based on available evidence, including rent receipts or data from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and if not possible, to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 95 of the MHADA Act. The court also directed the respondents to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Compensation for Acquisition - Article 300-A of the Constitution of India - The petitioner's property was acquired under Section 93(5) of the MHADA Act in 1988, but no compensation was paid for 36 years. The court held that non-payment of compensation violates Article 300-A and is arbitrary under Article 14, and directed the respondents to pay compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession (5th June 1989) until payment, within eight weeks. (Paras 2-18)

B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Duty of Acquiring Authority - Sections 93(5) and 95 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - The acquiring authority failed to pass an award or pay compensation despite taking possession in 1989. The court held that the authority cannot defeat the expropriated owner's right to compensation due to internal deficiencies or untraceable records. The court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine compensation based on available evidence, including rent receipts or MCGM data, and pay the amount with interest. (Paras 3-18)

C) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights - Right to Livelihood - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the callous and insensitive failure to pay compensation for 36 years violates the petitioner's right to livelihood under Article 21, as the property was a source of income. The court emphasized that such inaction by a public authority is unconstitutional. (Paras 3, 18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the failure to pay any compensation for compulsory acquisition of property for 36 years violates the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution, and what relief should be granted.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner within eight weeks, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession (5th June 1989) until the date of payment. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to determine the compensation based on available evidence, including rent receipts or data from MCGM, and if not possible, to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 95 of the MHADA Act. The respondents were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.

Law Points

  • Right to compensation under Article 300-A
  • duty of acquiring authority to pay compensation
  • non-payment violates fundamental rights
  • court can direct payment even without award
  • interest on delayed compensation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 4

Writ Petition No. 700 of 2003

2024-08-01

M. S. Sonak, Kamal Khata

Mr. Omprakash Pandey, Mr. Rahul Pandey, Ms. Pramila Pandey, Mr. Alok Singh (for petitioner); Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP (for State); Mr. P. G. Lad, Ms. Sayli Apte, Ms. Shreya Shah (for MHADA)

Yusuf Yunus Kantharia

Bombay Housing and Area Development Authority, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking compensation for compulsory acquisition of property under the MHADA Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought payment of compensation for the acquisition of his property, along with interest and costs.

Filing Reason

The petitioner's property was acquired in 1988, possession taken in 1989, but no compensation was paid for 36 years.

Previous Decisions

The petition was filed in 2003; rule was issued on 19th August 2003; no further affidavits were filed by respondents; the matter was taken up for final disposal in 2024.

Issues

Whether the failure to pay compensation for 36 years violates Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. What relief should be granted to the petitioner for the delayed compensation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that non-payment of compensation for 36 years is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights. Respondents (MHADA) did not dispute non-payment and relied on an affidavit from 2003 stating records were untraceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The right to compensation under Article 300-A is a constitutional right, and failure to pay compensation for an extended period violates Articles 14 and 21. The acquiring authority cannot avoid its duty due to internal deficiencies or untraceable records. The court can direct payment of compensation with interest even in the absence of an award.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner has not been paid compensation whatsoever for the acquisition of the said property, though almost 36 years have passed. This is quite callous and insensitive, apart from the same violating Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution. An expropriated owner cannot be defeated of his right of compensation because of the deficiencies in the functioning in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer. The failure to pay compensation for 36 years is arbitrary and violates the petitioner's right to livelihood under Article 21.

Procedural History

The petition was filed in 2003. On 22nd July 2003, the Division Bench adjourned for affidavits. On 5th August 2003, the court expressed distress over the respondent's affidavit and directed further efforts. On 19th August 2003, rule was issued. No further affidavits were filed. The matter was taken up for final disposal on 23rd July 2024 and reserved for orders, with judgment pronounced on 1st August 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: 93(5), 95
  • Constitution of India: 14, 21, 300-A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiffs in Partition Compromise Possession Suit Under CPC and Bihar Land Reforms Act. Constructive Possession of Homestead Allotted Under Unexecuted Partition Compromise Sufficient to Maintain Separate Suit for Recovery Despi...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Purchasers' Appeal in Contract for Sale of Immovable Property; Waiver of Condition Precedent for Buyer's Benefit and Delay Not Fatal. Clause Providing Refund on Government Requisition Did Not Terminate Seller's Obligation; Buyers...