THE KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. versus VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.S & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 358 · Decided: 14-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
THE KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
v.
VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.S & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 510 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.19 –
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – ss.126, 127
– Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6, 11 – Different portions of
the land reserved in the sanctioned development plan for various
public purposes – Land owned by the writ petitioners-respondent
not acquired and/or used for which the same was reserved under
the plan – Notice served by the land owners u/s. 127 of the MRTP
Act – Submission of proposal by the Municipal Corporation-
appellant to the State Government for compulsory acquisition of
the said property – Direction by the District Collector to the appellant
to deposit the compensation amount before the acquisition
procedure u/s. 4, 6 and 11 of the 1894 Act – Subsequently, on
enactment of the Act of 2013, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
directed the appellant to deposit the compensation amount, however
since the appellant was not in a financial position to pay such a
huge amount, it requested the landowners to accept the Transferable
Development Rights-TDR in lieu of compensation amount and the
same was accepted – Meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Officer
informed the appellant to deposit part of the total amount of
compensation and that the land under reservation fell within the
flood affected area and thus, the compensation amount was reduced
– As per the appellant, before the TDR proposal could be considered,
development work was to be carried out upon the said reserved
land for making it suitable for the public purpose – However, the
landowners did not agree to avail of the TDR and filed writ petition
seeking directions to the appellants to publish a final notification
u/s. 126(2) and (4) of the MRTP Act r/w s.19 of the Act of 2013;
and deposit the compensation amount – High Court directed the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to communicate to the Municipal
Corporation the amount which is required to be deposited by them
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 358
358
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
as a condition precedent for issuing a declaration u/s. 19 of the
said Act of 2013 – Appellants then filed writ petition seeking direction
to the respondents to accept the TDR in lieu of compensation –
High Court rejected their claim as respondents were not consenting
to accept the TDR – On appeal, held : Land had not been acquired
for ten years despite the writ petitioners having issued a purchase
notice dated 02.01.2012 u/s. 127 of the MRTP Act for acquisition
of the reserved area – Mere Resolution being passed by the General
Body of the Corporation to acquire the land and sending a letter to
the Collector to acquire the land, without any further steps being
taken under the Land Acquisition Act, namely no declaration u/s. 6
, would result in the reservation as deemed to have lapsed – Mere
passing of a Resolution and/or making a budgetary provision for
payment of the compensation in the budget cannot be said to be
taking steps as contemplated u/s. 127 of the MRTP Act – Thus,
once by operation of law, the reservation is deemed to have lapsed,
it is lapsed for all purposes and for all times to come – No further
writ of mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to
acquire the land and thereafter pay the compensation to the
landowners – Furthermore, no Corporation/Planning Authority can
be compelled to acquire the land which according to the
Corporation/Planning Authority is not suitable and/or usable for
the purposes for which it is reserved – Any other interpretation
would lead to colourable and fraudulent exercise of power and
cause financial burden on the public exchequer – Moreover, in case
of grant of TDR, before the High Court, the landowners specifically
filed the affidavits stating that they do not wish to avail of TDR and
their only prayer before the High Court was to acquire the land
and to pay them the compensation – Thus, now it is not open for the
landowners to pray for the TDR in respect of the land in question –
Principle of approbate and reprobate equally applicable to the
landowners also – Thus, the land once found to be usable and/or
suitable for the purposes for which it has been reserved, the
Corporation cannot still be compelled and directed to acquire th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.