Land Acquisition in Maharashtra: Supreme Court Rules on Award Validity and Legal Timeframe

The case of The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project vs. Mahesh & Others involves a significant legal dispute over land acquisition and compensation in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court examined whether the award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (now repealed) was valid within the timeframe stipulated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act).

Background of the Case

The Maharashtra government, on 16th June 2011, issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act) for acquiring 203.86 hectares of land in village Adyal, District Bhandara, Maharashtra, for the Gosikhurd Project. This was followed by declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, the last of which was issued on 8th August 2012.

However, on 1st January 2014, the 2013 Act came into effect, repealing the 1894 Act. Subsequently, an award for compensation was purportedly made on 30th October 2014. This award was challenged by some landowners before the Bombay High Court, which set it aside, ruling that:

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-keralas-forest-land-vesting-popular-estates-case/

• The award was backdated to 30th October 2014.
• The award should have been made within two years from the declaration (i.e., by 8th August 2014), as per the 1894 Act.
• The acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
• An inquiry should be conducted against the Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer for alleged manipulation.

Aggrieved by this ruling, the Maharashtra government and project authorities appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Maharashtra)

• The award made on 30th October 2014 was within the permissible timeframe under the 2013 Act.
• The Bombay High Court erred in applying the two-year limitation period of the 1894 Act instead of the twelve-month period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
• The award was not backdated, and the High Court’s conclusion was based on incorrect assumptions.
• Delays in finalizing the award were due to external factors, including a stay order by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on a related matter.

Arguments by the Respondents (Landowners)

• The award was backdated to circumvent the lapse of acquisition proceedings.
• The two-year limitation under the 1894 Act should apply, and since the award was made after 8th August 2014, the acquisition lapsed.
• Delays in issuing compensation negatively impacted landowners, depriving them of their rights.
• The High Court’s direction for an inquiry into the alleged manipulation of award dates was justified.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, examined whether Section 11A of the 1894 Act or Section 25 of the 2013 Act should govern the timeframe for making an award.

The Court ruled that:

• Section 25 of the 2013 Act (which requires an award to be made within 12 months) applies to pending land acquisition proceedings where no award was made before 1st January 2014.
• The period for making an award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act commenced from 1st January 2014.
• The High Court’s reliance on Section 11A of the 1894 Act was incorrect, as that provision ceased to apply after the 2013 Act came into force.
• The award was valid because it was made within 12 months from 1st January 2014.

The Court also rejected the claim that the award was backdated, noting that while certain discrepancies existed in documentation, they did not invalidate the entire acquisition process.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• Application of the 2013 Act: If no award was made before the repeal of the 1894 Act, compensation must be determined as per the 2013 Act, and the timeline in Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies.
• Impact on Land Acquisition Projects: The ruling ensures that pending land acquisition cases do not lapse due to procedural delays, provided awards are made within 12 months from the enforcement of the 2013 Act.
• Judicial Oversight on Land Acquisition: The Court reinforced that delays should not deprive landowners of fair compensation, but technical errors should not be exploited to invalidate large-scale projects.
• Government Responsibility: The Maharashtra government was directed to conduct an inquiry into the alleged mismanagement and discrepancies in award records.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project vs. Mahesh & Others clarifies the applicability of the 2013 Act to pending land acquisition cases. The judgment ensures that compensation is determined fairly under the new law while preventing lapses in acquisition proceedings due to outdated legal provisions. By upholding the validity of the award, the Court has reinforced the importance of adhering to legislative intent in balancing landowners’ rights with infrastructure development.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-sets-aside-land-allocation-to-war-veterans-widow-due-to-lack-of-eligibility/

Petitioner Name: The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation.
Respondent Name: Mahesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Bhandara, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 10-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-executive-engine-vs-mahesh-&-others-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-11-2021.pdf