The Bombay High Court directed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Solapur Municipal Corporation to pay Rs 50,000 each to three land owners whose lands were requisitioned in 1987, but were retained for 37 years without proper acquisition.
The lands were requisitioned in 1987 under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 by MHADA – which was at the time special planning authority for the area concerned – under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act).
A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain has clarified that the authorities are free to initiate proceedings to acquire the petitioners’ properties under the relevant law relating to compulsory acquisition.
The HC was hearing three petitions by landowners – late Dnyaneshwar Bhosale, Tukaram Bhosale, 66 and late Vithal Bhosale – contending that the State Government failed to issue required notification to acquire their lands after issuing requisition order in 1987.
State published a Notice on August 24, 1987 under the MHADA Act proposing to acquire the lands For constructing a road and widening a Nalla. However, the State did not issue any Notification as provided under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act to complete the acquisition.
The owners had agreed to Rs1 lakh per hectare as compensation for the requisition. However, they argued that under Section 9(1A) of the Requisition Act, requisition could not continue beyond 24 years, making the possession unlawful after July 2011. The State, however, contended that since it had taken possession of the properties under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, there was no further requirement for issuing any final notification under MHADA Act.
The Court, however, emphasized the distinction between a “notice” and a “notification” under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act. It observed that the 1987 notice merely proposed acquisition and sought objections but did not decide to acquire the land. Without a notification under Section 41(1), the Court held that the State’s claim of acquisition could not stand.
The Court also reiterated that requisition is a temporary measure and cannot be extended indefinitely. Noting the expiry of the requisition period in July 2011, it declared the continued possession of the land “illegal”.
“Still, because the Petitioners’ said properties are now used as a road and for the widening of Nalla, the interests of justice would require that the Respondents be granted one year to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings and acquire the Petitioners’ said properties if they do not wish to restore the said properties to the Petitioners,” the bench said.
The Court imposed costs on MHADA and the Solapur Municipal Corporation for failing to adhere to the law. This decision underscores the requirement for authorities to follow due process and protect the rights of landowners.
