Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Seeking Disbursement of Land Acquisition Compensation Under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Petitioners Entitled to Compensation Despite Delay in Award and Failure to File Reference Under Section 64.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, twelve agriculturists from village Arvi, Taluka Shirur (Ka), District Beed, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to disburse compensation under the land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019 passed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Their lands in Gat Nos.3, 28, 43, 45, 46, 48 & 104 were acquired on 08/06/1996 through private negotiation for a water resources project. The award was passed after a long delay, and the respondents withheld compensation on the ground that the petitioners failed to file a reference under Section 64 of the Act within the prescribed period of six weeks. The petitioners argued that Section 69 of the Act mandates immediate payment of compensation upon award, and Section 80 provides for reference only in case of disputes as to apportionment or entitlement. Since there was no such dispute, the respondents were bound to disburse the compensation. The respondents contended that the petitioners should have sought a reference under Section 64 within six weeks of the award, and having failed to do so, they lost their right to compensation. The court analyzed Sections 64, 69, and 80 of the Act and held that Section 64 applies only when there is a dispute as to measurement, value, or apportionment of compensation. In the absence of any such dispute, the respondents were obligated to pay compensation under Section 69. The court further held that the delay in passing the award cannot prejudice the petitioners' right to compensation. The court directed the respondents to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners within eight weeks, along with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of award and 15% per annum thereafter until payment. The court also clarified that the petitioners are entitled to seek enhancement of compensation through appropriate proceedings if they so choose.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Disbursement - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 69, 80 - Petitioners sought disbursement of compensation under award dated 09/09/2019 - Respondents withheld compensation claiming petitioners failed to file reference under Section 64 within limitation - Court held that Section 69 mandates immediate payment of compensation upon award, and Section 80 provides for reference to court only if there is dispute as to apportionment or entitlement - Since no such dispute existed, respondents were bound to disburse compensation - Held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation with interest at 9% per annum for first year and 15% per annum thereafter from the date of award till payment (Paras 1-16).

B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 64 - Limitation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 64 - Respondents argued that petitioners failed to seek reference within six weeks of award - Court observed that Section 64 applies only when there is dispute as to measurement, value, or apportionment - In absence of any such dispute, reference is not required - Held that the respondents cannot insist on reference as a precondition for payment (Paras 10-14).

C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction for enforcement of right to compensation - Court held that failure to disburse compensation amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 300A - Writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of statutory right to compensation (Paras 1, 16).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to disbursement of compensation under the land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019, and whether the respondents can withhold compensation on the ground that the petitioners failed to file a reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within the prescribed period of limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners within eight weeks from the date of the order, along with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of award and 15% per annum thereafter until payment. The court also clarified that the petitioners are entitled to seek enhancement of compensation through appropriate proceedings if they so choose.

Law Points

  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
  • Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
  • 2013
  • Section 69
  • Section 80
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
  • Compensation for land acquisition
  • Disbursement of compensation
  • Limitation for reference under Section 64
  • Power of Collector to make reference under Section 64
  • Entitlement to compensation despite delay in award
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 17

Writ Petition No.4032 of 2021 with Civil Application No.11152 of 2021 and Civil Application No.14017 of 2021

2023-06-30

Nitin W. Sambre, S. G. Chapalgaonkar

Mr. V. P. Latange, Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior Advocate) with Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Mr. M. S. Bhosale, Mr. V. S. Kadam, Mr. Arun Shejwal, Mr. K. F. Shingare, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya (AGP), Mr. Sudhir Balerao

Ashok Shahadeo Bhokare & Ors.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for disbursement of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought directions to respondents to disburse the amount of compensation under the land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019.

Filing Reason

Respondents withheld compensation on the ground that petitioners failed to file a reference under Section 64 of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation.

Previous Decisions

Land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019 was passed by Respondent No.4 under the Act, 2013.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to disbursement of compensation under the land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019? Whether the respondents can withhold compensation on the ground that the petitioners failed to file a reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within the prescribed period of limitation?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that Section 69 of the Act mandates immediate payment of compensation upon award, and Section 80 provides for reference only in case of disputes as to apportionment or entitlement. Since there was no such dispute, respondents were bound to disburse compensation. Respondents contended that petitioners should have sought a reference under Section 64 within six weeks of the award, and having failed to do so, they lost their right to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 69 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 mandates immediate payment of compensation upon passing of the award. Section 80 provides for reference to court only when there is a dispute as to apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. In the absence of any such dispute, the Collector is bound to pay the compensation to the persons entitled thereto. The failure to file a reference under Section 64 within the period of limitation does not disentitle the claimants from receiving compensation, as Section 64 applies only when there is a dispute as to measurement, value, or apportionment. The right to compensation is a fundamental right under Article 300A of the Constitution, and the respondents cannot withhold compensation on technical grounds.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 69 of the Act, 2013 mandates that the Collector shall, immediately after passing the award, tender payment of compensation to the persons entitled thereto. Section 80 of the Act, 2013 provides for reference to court only when there is a dispute as to the apportionment of the compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable. In the absence of any dispute as to apportionment or entitlement, the respondents were bound to disburse the compensation to the petitioners. The failure to file a reference under Section 64 within the period of limitation does not disentitle the claimants from receiving compensation.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4032 of 2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for disbursement of compensation under the land acquisition award dated 09/09/2019. The court reserved judgment on 25.04.2023 and pronounced it on 30.06.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 64, Section 69, Section 80
  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 300A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Seeking Disbursement of Land Acquisition Compensation Under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Petitioners Entitled to Compensation Despit...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Recruitment Notification Case for Home Science Lecturers. The Court held that the notification was valid as the governing rules do not mandate subject-wise breakup for Home Science, which is treated as a subject for un...