Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Balasaheb Sopan Dorge, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, seeking directions to the respondents (State of Maharashtra and others) to decide his application dated 21 April 2025 for compensation, and to quash allotment orders dated 30 May 2016 and 3 September 2019 passed by the District Resettlement Officer, Pune, in respect of his lands bearing old Gat No.210 (new Gat No.531) and old Gat No.215 (new Gat No.504/2) situated at Village Yawat Station, Taluka Daund, District Pune. The petitioner contended that the respondents took possession of his land without issuing any notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and without paying compensation. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by delay and laches, as the allotment orders were passed in 2016 and 2019. The Court, relying on its earlier decision in Mrs. Sumitra Shridhar Khane v. Deputy Collector of Special Land Acquisition No.12, Kolhapur, held that the State cannot evade payment of compensation merely because no award was passed, and that delay and laches cannot be a defence when the State has dispossessed the landowner without compensation. The Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's application dated 21 April 2025 within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order, and disposed of the petition. The Court did not quash the allotment orders, as the petitioner had not challenged them earlier and the main relief was for decision on the compensation application.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation for Dispossession - Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Failure to issue notification under Section 6 does not absolve the State from paying compensation when possession has been taken without following due procedure - The Court held that the State cannot evade its obligation to pay compensation merely because no award was passed, and delay and laches cannot be raised as a defence when the State has dispossessed the landowner without compensation (Paras 3-4). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court can direct the State to decide a pending application for compensation even if the petition is belated, as the State's inaction caused the delay - The Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's application dated 21/4/2025 within a stipulated time (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for land taken over by the State without following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the petition is barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's application dated 21 April 2025 within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The petition was disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 6
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Compensation for dispossession without acquisition
- Delay and laches not a bar when State has taken possession without compensation
