Read Time: 08 minutes

The Bombay High Court has recently set aside the Maharashtra Government’s notification exempting persons affected by the Nagpur-Mumbai Express Highway (Samruddhi Super Expressway) project from getting compensation for land acquisition as per the existing market value of their acquired property.

The Maharashtra government had issued a corrigendum to avoid paying compensation at the market rate to owners of the property to be acquired for the expressway as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

A division bench of Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Vinay Joshi while hearing a clutch of petitions struck down the same and held that the impugned corrigendum, “deviated from the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and rules framed in 2014 governing the principle for determination of the compensation of the amount”.

Under the resolution dated August 13, 2018, the State government had decided to consider the 'ready reckoner' (RR) (the minimum rate of property transactions notified by the government through the revenue office) under the Maharashtra Stamp Act for determining the market value of the land.

Based on this rate, the government had also fixed the compensation to be paid to the owners of the property acquired by the government.

However, by a corrigendum notification dated September 2018, the State government exempted the Maharashtra Samruddhi Super Expressway project from the circular.

The Notice meant that the persons entitled to compensation would not get the same value as the RR rate.

The corrigendum effectively allowed the government to avoid paying the compensation at the market rate to owners of the property to be acquired for the expressway as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

Instead, the government had recommended calculating the level of compensation based on the compensation paid for 83 percent of the required property it had already acquired through private transactions.

Advocate Nikhil Mengade, the learned counsel for the petitioners had challenged this corrigendum on the ground that the government could not differentiate between projects while determining the compensation amount for land acquisition as it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Mengade argued that the Respondents cannot determine the quantum of compensation for projects applying different policies. And that the same also would not be in consonance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Advocate General (AG) Ashutosh Kumbhakoni for the State submitted that the guidelines are provided for the determination of the RR rates under the Indian Stamps Act. Under the Notification dated  August 23, 2014, Rules have been framed namely – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2014 (the Rules 2014).

AG also submitted that in case the award is passed, the petitioners have the right to assail before the executive. That, before the executive, the petitioner can raise all the contentions.

AG further added that the circular need not be quashed and that 83% of the acquisition has been completed by private purchase and compensation has been paid. In view of that, impugned communication is issued.

The bench observed that "the Circular date August 13, 2018, appears to be in consonance with the provision of Statute and Rules as referred to (supra), however, the corrigendum dated September 11, 2018, deviates from the provisions of said statute and rules governing the principle for determination of the compensation of the amount. Such executive instructions are contrary to the provision of the statute, rules cannot be sustained. The same would be beyond the purview of the powers conferred on an executive under Article 162 of the Constitution of India".

Hence, the impugned corrigendum dated September 11, 2018, is set aside.

Case Title: Radhika Jagdish Bhalerao and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.