The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that public authorities cannot lawfully utilize private land for infrastructure projects without first completing statutory acquisition procedures. This contempt petition underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for bureaucratic inertia and misinterpretation of statutory obligations under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, landowners of Survey No. 294 in Pune, alleged that their land was physically occupied and used for constructing a public road without any formal acquisition process or compensation. Despite a writ petition filed in 2016, the State and Pune Municipal Corporation failed to issue a declaration under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or determine compensation as mandated by law.
Procedural History
- 2016: Writ petition filed seeking direction for acquisition and compensation
- Prior to 2024: Court issued directions for the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to proceed with acquisition and award compensation
- 2024: Contempt petition filed alleging non-compliance with court orders
- 2026: Hearing before Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought contempt proceedings against the State officers for willful disobedience of court orders and demanded immediate compliance with statutory acquisition procedures, including issuance of declaration under Section 19 and payment of fair compensation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 permits public authorities to utilize private land for public purposes before completing the mandatory acquisition process, and whether shifting the burden of proof to landowners constitutes contempt of court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the State had violated the mandatory sequence under the 2013 Act: acquisition must precede utilization. They cited State of Haryana v. Shiv Kumar to assert that possession without acquisition is illegal. The respondents’ claim that land ownership was unclear due to multiple entries in the 7/12 extract was dismissed as a pretext for inaction. The petitioners emphasized that the burden to clarify title lies with the acquiring authority, not the landowners.
For the Respondent
The State and Municipal Corporation contended that confusion over land ownership - due to 11 recorded owners in the 7/12 extract - prevented them from proceeding with acquisition. They argued that the petitioners failed to demarcate their portion during joint measurement, and that the deposit of 30% of estimated compensation demonstrated good faith. They claimed no willful disobedience, only administrative delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the respondents’ justification outright. It held that the statutory obligation to acquire land before use is non-negotiable and cannot be circumvented by citing title disputes. The Court observed that the very purpose of the 2013 Act is to protect landowners from arbitrary dispossession, and that the State’s role is to resolve ambiguity, not to use it as an excuse for inaction.
"It appears that the Officers of the respondents have turned the entire proceeding on its head by placing the onus on the petitioners rather than the Officers themselves taking appropriate steps in accordance with law for showing compliance with the orders passed by this Court."
The Court emphasized that Section 19 requires the acquiring authority to initiate the process upon determination of public purpose. The deposit of 30% compensation was noted as a procedural step, but it does not absolve the State of its primary duty to issue a declaration and complete acquisition. The Court found the respondents’ conduct to be in clear violation of both statutory mandates and court orders, constituting contempt.
The Verdict
The petitioners prevailed. The Court held that utilization of land without prior acquisition under the 2013 Act is unlawful, and that shifting the burden of proof to landowners constitutes contempt of court. The respondents were directed to file fresh affidavits within two weeks detailing their plan for compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Acquisition Must Precede Possession
- Practitioners must challenge any public project using land without a Section 19 declaration
- Courts will not tolerate post-facto justifications for unauthorized possession
- Landowners can invoke contempt proceedings if acquisition is delayed after court directions
Burden of Title Clarification Lies with the State
- The 7/12 extract’s multiplicity of names does not absolve the acquiring authority
- The State must conduct due diligence and resolve title disputes before proceeding
- Oral claims of confusion by officials are insufficient without documented efforts to clarify ownership
Compliance with Court Orders Is Non-Negotiable
- Deposit of partial compensation does not equate to compliance
- Courts expect proactive, not reactive, action from public authorities
- Failure to act with alacrity after judicial direction invites contempt proceedings
