The Bombay High Court, in a landmark judgment, has held that a land acquisition award amended after 31 years through a corrigendum is void ab initio if the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) were not followed. The Court emphasized that the failure to issue notices under Section 9 and Section 12(2) of the LA Act to the rightful landowners renders the acquisition proceedings illegal and non-est. The judgment underscores the principle that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law, as enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, legal heirs of Late Ahmad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada (Late Dada), owned land admeasuring 3 acres and 5½ gunthas (1613 sq. mtrs) bearing Survey No. 247 Pt. No. 3, CTS 913 (part) in Kurla, Mumbai. The State of Maharashtra proposed to acquire certain lands for the public purpose of constructing the “Santacruz-Chembur Link Road” under Section 6 of the LA Act read with Section 126(2) & (4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). A notification for acquisition was issued on 21 October 1982, but the petitioners’ land was not specifically included in the description of lands notified for acquisition.
Key Facts
Ownership: Late Dada was the owner of the land, as reflected in the revenue records (7/12 extract) vide Mutation Entry No. 127 dated 22 October 1981.
Notification: The notification dated 21 October 1982 did not specifically include the petitioners’ land (Survey No. 247 Pt. No. 3, CTS 913 (part)).
Notices Under Section 9: Notices under Section 9(3) and (4) of the LA Act were issued to third parties (Baitulbai Faizulla Mukadam and six others) but not to Late Dada or the petitioners.
Award: The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award dated 23 September 1986, which did not include the petitioners’ names or their land. The award incorrectly recorded Baitulbai Faizulla Mukadam and six others as the owners of the petitioners’ land.
Possession: Unilateral possession of the petitioners’ land was taken on 7 April 2005 without any notice or compensation to the petitioners.
Corrigendum: On 5 April 2017, the SLAO issued a corrigendum to amend the award dated 23 September 1986, including the petitioners’ names and land after 31 years. This corrigendum was issued under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), which is inapplicable to awards passed under the LA Act.
Notice Under Section 12(2): A notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued to the petitioners on 27 April 2017, informing them of the award and corrigendum.
Procedural History
8 March 1987: Late Dada’s father informed the SLAO of Late Dada’s demise and requested notices be sent to the petitioners. This letter was received by the SLAO on 20 March 1987 but was not acted upon.
11 May 2009: The petitioners filed an application for correction of the award, which was rejected by the SLAO on 16 July 2009 on the ground of delay.
22 March 2011: The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 643 of 2011 challenging the rejection of their application. The Court directed the respondents to deposit the compensation amount in Court on 5 September 2011.
15 November 2011: The petitioners withdrew Writ Petition No. 643 of 2011 with liberty to file a reference under Section 30 of the LA Act.
11 May 2011: The petitioners filed Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No. 9 of 2011 under Section 30 of the LA Act. The Deputy Collector admitted the mistake in the award and recommended its amendment.
10 February 2017: The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to amend the award in accordance with law.
5 April 2017: The SLAO issued the impugned corrigendum amending the award dated 23 September 1986.
27 April 2017: A notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued to the petitioners.
28 April 2017: The petitioners withdrew LAR No. 9 of 2011 with liberty to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
8 June 2017: The petitioners rejected the compensation offered under the notice dated 27 April 2017 and demanded compensation under the 2013 Act.
3 July 2017: The petitioners’ representation was rejected by the Deputy Collector.
2018: The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the award, corrigendum, and notice under Section 12(2).
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
Declaration that the acquisition of the petitioners’ land under the award dated 23 September 1986 is bad in law, null, and void.
Quashing of the impugned award, corrigendum dated 5 April 2017, and notice dated 27 April 2017.
Direction to the respondents to pay compensation under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether the impugned award dated 23 September 1986, amended after 31 years via the corrigendum dated 5 April 2017, could be considered valid and binding on the petitioners, given the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 9 and 12(2) of the LA Act. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation under the LA Act or the 2013 Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The impugned award dated 23 September 1986 was void ab initio as it did not follow the mandatory procedure under the LA Act, including the issuance of notices under Section 9 and Section 12(2) to the petitioners.
The corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 was issued without any legal basis and could not revive a void award.
The compensation offered under the award was illusory and insufficient, given the lapse of 31 years since the award’s declaration.
The petitioners were entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, as there was no valid award against their land as of 1 January 2014.
For the Respondents
The petition was barred by delay and laches, as the petitioners were aware of the acquisition proceedings since 8 March 1987.
The acquisition proceedings were initiated under the MRTP Act, and thus, the lapsing provisions under Section 24 of the 2013 Act were not applicable.
Non-receipt of notices under Sections 9 and 12(2) of the LA Act did not vitiate the award, as constructive notice was sufficient.
The petitioners had withdrawn their earlier writ petition and filed a reference under Section 30 of the LA Act, thereby accepting the award.
The Court's Analysis
The Court analyzed the mandatory provisions of the LA Act, particularly Sections 9 and 12(2), which require strict compliance to divest a landowner of their property. The Court observed:
"The LA Act is an expropriatory legislation, and hence, the interpretation of its provisions must be strict, putting the least burden on the expropriated owner."
The Court relied on precedents such as State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma & Ors. and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors., which emphasize the strict interpretation of expropriatory laws.
The Court held that the failure to issue notices under Section 9 and Section 12(2) of the LA Act to the petitioners rendered the award void ab initio. The corrigendum issued after 31 years could not cure this fundamental defect, as the SLAO had no jurisdiction to amend the award beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 13A of the LA Act.
The Court also addressed the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man), holding that the petitioners’ rights remained intact despite the withdrawal of their earlier writ petition. The Court observed that the respondents’ actions compounded the illegality, and the corrigendum and subsequent notice under Section 12(2) were futile attempts to breathe life into a stillborn award.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and held:
The impugned award dated 23 September 1986, the corrigendum dated 5 April 2017, and the notice dated 27 April 2017 under Section 12(2) of the LA Act are illegal, null, and void.
The petitioners’ land was acquired without following due process, and thus, the acquisition proceedings must commence afresh under the LA Act.
The Court directed the respondents to undertake fresh proceedings under the notification dated 21 October 1982, issued under Section 6 of the LA Act read with Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act, for the determination of compensation in accordance with the LA Act.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strict Compliance with Procedural Requirements Is Mandatory
The judgment reaffirms that the LA Act is an expropriatory legislation, and its provisions must be strictly complied with. Failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, such as issuing notices under Sections 9 and 12(2), renders the acquisition proceedings void ab initio.
Practitioners must ensure that all procedural steps, including the issuance of notices to the correct parties, are meticulously followed to avoid legal challenges.
Corrigendum Cannot Revive a Void Award
A corrigendum issued beyond the statutory limitation period (six months under Section 13A of the LA Act) cannot cure defects in an award. Courts will not recognize such attempts to revive void awards.
Landowners can challenge corrigenda issued after an unreasonable delay, especially if they were not included in the original award or notified of the proceedings.
Compensation Must Reflect Current Market Value
Compensation awarded under the LA Act must reflect the market value of the land at the time of the award’s declaration. Offering compensation based on outdated rates, especially after decades, amounts to no compensation at all.
Courts may intervene to mold reliefs and direct the determination of compensation based on current market values to prevent injustice under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Fresh Proceedings May Be Required for Illegal Acquisitions
Where acquisition proceedings are found to be illegal or void, fresh proceedings may be required to determine compensation. The Court may direct the State to commence acquisition afresh, ensuring compliance with all legal requirements.
Landowners can seek relief under the 2013 Act if no valid award exists as of 1 January 2014, but the Court may also direct fresh proceedings under the LA Act if the acquisition was initiated under the LA Act.
