Case No.
Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2018 with Chamber Summons No. 304 of 2018 with Chamber Summons (L) No. 341 of 2018 with Interim Application No. 99 of 2020
Bench
G. S. Kulkarni J., Rajesh S. Patil J.
Acts & Sections
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 §6
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 §Award provisions
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act… §126(2)
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act… §126(4)
Constitution §226
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency… §General
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioners, heirs and legal representatives of the late owner of land bearing Survey No. 247 Pt. No. 3, CTS 913 (part) admeasuring 3 acres and 5½ gunthas at Kurla, Mumbai, challenged a Corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 by which, 31 years after the original Land Acquisition Award dated 23 September 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer purported to include their land within the scope of that award. The petitioners contended that their land had been omitted from the original award and that such omission could not be rectified by a corrigendum issued after such an inordinate delay, and that the acquisition as sought to be effected was without lawful procedure and without any offer of compensation.
The petition arose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and concerned the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to a Section 6 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 126(2) and (4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, for the public purpose of constructing the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The court examined whether the impugned corrigendum to the award could have legal effect after a lapse of three decades and whether the procedural and substantive requirements of the land acquisition law had been complied with by the State and its instrumentalities.
The High Court of Bombay noted with concern that despite the law on land acquisition being well-settled for over 132 years, lapses by the official machinery had forced the petitioners to litigate for approximately 15 years, and observed that the conduct of the Special Land Acquisition Officer surpassed all reasonable legal imagination. The judgment addressed the legality of the corrigendum and the rights of the landowners to compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Catchwords:
land acquisition · corrigendum to award · inordinate delay · Land Acquisition Act 1894 · public purpose · Santacruz-Chembur Link Road · MMRDA · compensation · eminent domain · Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 · writ petition · Article 226 · award · Section 6 notification · procedural lapse · landowner rights
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
