Prakash Gangaram Dhage And Others Vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others (W.P.No. 3609 Of 2020) – Bombay High Court

Summary of the Judgment on Land Acquisition and Compensation Claim

This judgment concerns a dispute over the compensation for land used in the construction of a road under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) during the drought year of 1972. The petitioners, whose ancestors owned the land, sought compensation for the land that had been used to construct a road without proper acquisition proceedings. Despite the road being in existence for over 47 years, the petitioners argued that they were entitled to compensation under the constitutional right to property.

Facts of the Case

In 1972, during the drought year, a road was constructed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS). The respondents contended that the land for this road was either voluntarily donated by the original landowners or used with their consent. The petitioners, however, argued that their ancestors’ land was taken without any formal land acquisition process under the B.H. Act or the then applicable Land Acquisition Act (L.A. Act). After a delay of 47 years, the petitioners sought compensation for the land’s use.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that the construction of the road violated their constitutional rights, particularly under Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution, which protects property rights. They contended that no authority, including the government, can dispossess a landowner without following due process under the law. The petitioners cited the Vidya Devi case (Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 160), where the Supreme Court held that forcible dispossession without following proper legal procedures violates constitutional rights.

The petitioners also invoked Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, which stipulates that if land acquisition proceedings have not been completed for five years or more, the proceedings will lapse. However, they argued that since no acquisition proceedings were initiated under the relevant laws, they were entitled to compensation for the land used.

Respondents’ Defense

The respondents argued that the land had been voluntarily donated by the original owners for the construction of the road under the EGS in 1972. They claimed that the land had been in uninterrupted possession since 1972, and no objection was raised by the original owners or the petitioners’ ancestors during their lifetimes. The respondents further argued that the doctrine of “adverse possession” might apply since they had been in continuous possession of the land for decades.

However, the respondents failed to produce any documentation supporting their claim of land donation or that they had initiated acquisition proceedings. Moreover, the claim of adverse possession was not substantiated by any legal evidence.

Court’s Findings

The Court acknowledged that the respondents had been in possession of the land since 1972, but noted the absence of documentation proving that the land had been voluntarily donated or that the acquisition process was followed. Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondents’ claim of adverse possession, as no evidence was provided to substantiate it.

The Court also noted that the petitioners had delayed raising their claim, but it did not consider the delay as an absolute bar, given the absence of legal acquisition procedures and the violation of the petitioners’ constitutional rights. Therefore, the petitioners were not barred by the doctrine of laches.

Conclusion and Order

The Court ruled that the writ petition was partly allowed. It ordered the respondents to initiate the land acquisition proceedings for the disputed land and determine compensation as per the law. The respondents were also directed to submit a proposal to the concerned authority for initiating the acquisition process. The Court emphasized that the petitioners’ right to compensation was not extinguished by the delay, especially since no formal acquisition process had been followed.