HC finds 1986 SCLR land acquisition faulty, orders fresh compensation

In its 126-page judgement, the court found that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had issued notices to persons who were not the owners of the land

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday has set aside a 1986 land acquisition award and a 2017 corrigendum related to the acquisition of a Kurla land parcel for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR) finding the acquisition process faulty as notices were served on the wrong persons instead of the actual landowners.

HC finds 1986 SCLR land acquisition faulty, orders fresh compensation

The case was contested by four legal heirs of Ahamad Dada, who owned a 1,613 sq m portion of land acquired for the SCLR project. They argued that neither Ahamad nor his heirs were issued notices under the Land Acquisition Act before the land was taken over through an acquisition award in September 1986.

They also challenged a corrigendum issued in April 2017, arguing that the corrigendum sought to rectify the lapse of omission of their land in the award more than three decades later. The petitioners said that while the acquisition of their land was itself faulty, it had been foisted on them through the corrigendum of 2017.

In its 126-page judgement, the court found that the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had issued notices to persons who were not the owners of the land and also failed to rectify the mistake before taking possession in 2005.

A division bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Rajesh Patil observed, “Considering the methods and actions of the Land Acquisition Officers, in our opinion, the present case surpasses all reasonable and legitimate imagination of a legal mind…”

The land belonged to Ahamad Dada, who died in 1984. In 1982, the state government had proposed acquiring over 10,977.5 sq m in Kurla and 112.5 sq m land in Chembur for the SCLR project.

Of the larger survey number that was part of the land identified in Kurla for acquisition, 1,613 sq m of land belonged to the petitioners. The petitioners said their predecessor never received any notice regarding acquisition or compensation.

According to the petition, the SLAO issued the notice to unrelated persons which included one Baitulbai Faizulla Mukadam and six others and that no attempt was made to re-issue the notice to the rightful owner of the land.

The court noted that possession of the petitioners’ land was taken on April 7, 2005 without notice. In 2008, when the petitioners wrote a letter to SLAO authorities seeking compensation, they received no response.

They contended that in 2017, the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) informed them, for the first time, that compensation of ₹2.72 lakh had been fixed, which they did not accept.

The court noted that the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) admitted in an affidavit that the land had been wrongly described in official records and said the mistake was corrected through the 2017 corrigendum. However, he argued that the land had already been used for a public project and therefore the petitioners could not be granted any relief now.

The court, however, called the acquisition of the land a “factual blunder”, and observed that no proper inquiry was conducted to identify the real owners before the acquisition proceedings.

It further ruled that the defect could not be corrected by issuing a corrigendum 31 years after the original acquisition award.

“The belated attempt to issue the impugned corrigendum (of 2017) was a futile attempt to breathe life into the award, which, insofar as the petitioners’ land is concerned, was stillborn,” the judges said.

The judges said that neither inquiries were made, nor proper care taken to bring the owners of the land within the purview of the acquisition proceedings.In fact, the court said, the record indicates that the notices in respect of the petitioners’ land were issued to a third party and the possession of the petitioners’ land was taken unilaterally on 7 April 2005.

The court has now directed the state government to determine fresh compensation for the petitioner’s land based on its current market value within three months.