The Right of Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &

Resettlement Act, 2013(Central Act)

1. Singur Tata Nano Case WB

Government and Tata Motor
• Left Front wins the State Assembly election for the seventh time running in 2006. CM
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has a vision of Industrialize the state and create jobs for the
youth, Ratan Tata promises the nation a ONE LAKH CAR. Tata Motors accept a lucrative
offer by the WB government.
Farmers of Singur
• According to govt. on Singur block, 83% of the land is highly fertile land. Landholdings
in Singur are small with very few owners having more than 2 bighas (0.66 acres) More
than 11,000 land holdings. Of a total of 6,000 families that will be affected, about 3500
farming households work on their own fields and can be called poor or subsistence
farmers. Maiority of non-farming households in Singur are employed in agriculture-
related occupations.
• 18 May: In a joint press conference with the then CM, in Kolkata Ratan Tata says that
Tata Motors had decided to locate the Rs 1 Lakh small car project at Singur in Hooghly.
• The project will spread over 700 acres with another 300 acres kept aside for ancilary
Production.
• 25 May: when the Tata company representatives and the officiais went to see the land.
The people refuse to let them reach their fields.
• 26 May: Angry farmers demanded assured jobs in it.
• 1 June: About 3,000 villager stages a demonstration in front of the office of the Singur
block development officer against the government's move to acquire farmland for the
Tata Motors project.
• 19-24 July: Ignoring the people's voice the Government issued • 13 notices under
Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act of
• 1894 to the affected farmers.
• Aug 28, 2006:- Land acquisition challenged in Kolkata High Court.
• 25 September: Singur Land forcefully acquired. The events showed that the Left Front
Government would go to any extent to evict the people and hand over the land to the
company officials, more than four hundred people including several women and
children were brutally assaulted and about 78 activists were arrested.
• 1 October: Ex-chief justices of the Supreme Court judges J. S.
• Verma and Rajendra Babu and retired judge M. N. Rao wrote letters to Ratan Tata to
abandon Singur
• 5 November: Mamata Baneriee asks the Tatas to shift their proposed small car project
from farmland in West Bengal's Singur and gave a 12-day ultimatum to the state
government to announce that industries would not be set up on agricultural land
• Dec 4, 2006:- The WB Govt claimed that 920 acres of land had been voluntarily handed
over with the owners of 650 acres accepting the compensation.
• Mar 9: Tata Motors got possession of land. 949.5 acres of land leased out to the company
for 90 years.
• Mar 27,2007:- The state government admitted that its advocate general made an
"erroneous" submission to the Kolkata High Court on the compensation for farmers.
• The true facts state that only 30% of the land owners of Singur who own 287.5 acres of
land had given consent in writing. It meant that around 65% who had even collected
cheques were against the forced land acquisition.
• 2 May, 2007: The High Court says the affidavit submitted by the government on the
Singur land acquisition process was"incomplete
• Jun 7, 2007:- The state govt. accepts before High Court that about 300 acres of land in
Singur was yet undecided and terms not agreed by owners
• 28 May: Mamata Banerjee said that she had no objection to the Tata Motors project at
Singur if the government returned the 400 acres of land to those farmers who did not
accept compensation.
• Aug 22, 2008:- Ratan Tata declares that Nano project might shift out of Singur if violence
continues. Officers and engineers harassed for hours. Work in progress under police
protection.
• October 3: Tatas declared their decision to move the Nano Project out of West Bengal.,
now in Gujrat.

2. Posco Case in Odisha

• Pohang Iron and Steel Company – South Korea – signed an MOU with the Government of
Odisha – 2005 – 12 bn $ steel plant – Indian subsidiary POSCO India Pvt Ltd - an
integrated plant to manufacture steel, mine iron ore and other ores, as well as the
infrastructure necessary for its operations.
• State of Odisha agreed to acquire and provide 6000 acres of land – plant / social
infrastructure / township – including licenses and permits to obtain coal and iron ore,
rail links, and a highway road connection – endevour to provide approvals for forest
clearances and issues related to the environment.
• Subsequently, The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act 2006 – enacted.
• Alleged violation of their rights – Committees setup – reports suggested non-recognition
of forest rights by the Government of Odisha - violation of the Act in land acquisition to
POSCO – recommended the withdrawal of the clearance given to the State Government
for diversion of the forest land.
• Pohang Iron and Steel Company – South Korea – signed an MOU with the Government of
Odisha – 2005 – 12 bn $ steel plant – Indian subsidiary POSCO India Pvt Ltd - an
integrated plant to manufacture steel, mine iron ore and other ores, as well as the
infrastructure including a port - necessary for its operations.
• State of Odisha agreed to acquire and provide 6000 acres of land – plant / social
infrastructure / township – including licenses and permits to obtain coal and iron ore,
rail links, and a highway road connection – endevour to provide approvals for forest
clearances and issues related to the environment.
• Opposition / resistance / protests - Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti - strives to defend
the human rights, lands, livelihoods, and protection of the environment of the
communities affected by the POSCO project – 100 years plus occupation – accquired.
• The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act 2006 – enacted.
• Alleged violation of their rights – Committees setup – reports suggested non-recognition
of forest rights by the Government of Odisha - violation of the Act – in land acquisition to
POSCO – recommended the withdrawal of the clearance given to the State Government
for diversion of the forest land/ – raised concerms on the EIA study.
 • Subsequently - Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 amended
2015 – all further leases through Auction – 2015
• 2017 – POSCO withdraws – offers to surrender acquired land – State decides not to
return the land and hunt for companies to replace POSCO - JSW Utkal steel.
• Lakhs of felled trees, thousands of promised jobs that never materialised, and frustrated
villagers staring at an uncertain future

3. Pune Minucipal Corporation v. Harakchand Solanki

FACTS: On 06.08.2002, the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal

Corporation duly approved by the Standing Committee for acquisition of lands
admeasuring 43.94 acres for development of “Forest Garden” was sent to the Collector,
Pune. The Collector sanctioned the proposal and on 20.02.2003 forwarded the same to
Special Land Acquisition Officer (15), Pune for further action. On 30.09.2004, the
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published in the official gazette. Then
notices under Section 4(1) were served upon the landowners/interested persons. On
26.12.2005, the declaration under Section 6 was published in the official gazette and on
02.02.2006, it was also published at the site and on the notice board of the Office of
Talaltti. Following the notices under Section 9, on 31.01.2008 the Special Land
Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. Further, the
landowners challenged the above acquisition proceedings before the Bombay High Court
in 9 writ petitions. ISSUE: what is the true meaning of the expression: “compensation has
not been paid” occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
DECISION/JUDGMENT: Deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury
is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the
landowners/persons interested. The court remarkably said that if such compensation is not
paid to the landowner then “the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

4. Delhi Development
Authority v. Kulsham Jain’
Facts: This decision was of the Delhi HC was challenged in the SC.
DDA contended that – the requisitioning authority had already paid the amounts to the Land
Acquisition Collector – which was subsequently deposited in the treasury - as per standing
orders issued by the Government - and the DDA should not be held responsible for the delay in
payment of compensation on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector in disbursing the
amount.
DDA also contended that in any case, the payment has been deposited in the Court in
December, 2013 been made prior to 1.1.2014, the date on which the 2013 Act came into force –
provisions wont apply.
Further contended that – developments had taken place – third party rights – there would be
serious consequences.
SC held – There was no evidence on record to show an offer of payment of money was made to
the land owner at the time of passing the Award – or - that after the Award was made, notice
was issued to the land owners requesting them to receive the compensation – or - that any
effort was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector - for disbursing the compensation to the
land owners – only then the money was to be deposited in the treasury. Relied upon Pune
Municipal Corporation Judgement.
The SC observed that - there was evidence on record to show that the payment made to the
collector was in 2002 – and further - the disputed possession was claimed to have been taken
in 2002.
To ensure third party interests - It is open to the appropriate Government, if they choose so, to
initiate proceedings for acquisition of such land afresh but the only rider is that the acquisition
should be in accordance with the provisions under 2013 Act - to
be done within 1 year – else return the possession.

The aftermath: Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others.

• Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors - a 3 Judge
Bench.
• Indore Development Authority v Shailendra - a Bench of three Judges was of the view
that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation judgement did not consider several
aspects relating to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 – 2 judges opined
prima facie that decision appeared to be per incuriam.
• Indore Development Authority v Shyam Verma & Ors - considered it appropriate to refer
the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to refer the issues to be resolved by a
larger Bench at the earliest.
• Referred to CJI to be referred to a larger bench – Compensation paid / “or” – should it be
disjunctive or conjunctive – should it be read as “and”
• The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be
read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ – meaning in case possession has been taken, compensation has
not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
• The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are
applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and
pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force.
• Deciphering compensation paid - In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of
compensation in court.

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966(State Act)

5. Ganesh Ginning & Pressing
Co. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra
Facts:

• Use of land – Industrial Use – Subsequently changed to Residential Use – Authorities.

• Petitioner applied for change of use to Residential

• State – called in for responses from 12 authorities – some replied with NOCs – some did
not
• 90 days elapsed
• Petitioner contented - Deeming provision – petitioner wanted to rely on it - Quashing
• application made against this communication and for declaration that permission for
• conversion of user is deemed to have been granted by virtue of Section 44(3) of the
• Code.
• State wrote back to the petitioner – NOC not received – Issues relating to filing of
• application raised - essentially withdrawing the deemed grant.
• In the interim – An intervention application – claiming to be the tenant – on the land in
question.

The court held: Deeming provision takes effect and the permission is deemed to have been
granted -and consequently, the subsequent communication regarding filing of the
application will not affect the deemed permission as it is well beyond the prescribed period
of 90days. If the language of the statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, it cannot be
interpreted in a different manner. Tenant settled with the petitioner – Even otherwise - the
contention that in case of an objection by a third person regarding title – beyond the scope
of Section 44(3). Other objections which are not germane to the enquiry cannot be taken
into consideration and though such objections are raised, obligation to decide the
application within 90 days cannot be by-passed.

6. Satish Sabharwal v. State of

Maharashtra
Facts: Section 257 - Power of State Government and of certain revenue and survey officers
to call for and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers. SG may call for
and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue or
survey officer, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the
legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the
proceedings of such officer If it shall appear to the SG that any decision or order or
proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, it may pass such order
thereon as it or he deems fit.
Provided - The SG shall not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right
between private persons without having given to the parties interested notice to
appear and to be heard in support of such order.
Held - Government had the power to revise orders passed by Additional Collector. The
grounds on the basis of which the Government acted existed and therefore the action on the
part of the Government was bonafide and in public interest. Although the learned Judges felt
that the Government did not act diligently but still in the public interest the High Court
maintained the order passed by the Government with the directions to compensate the
persons concerned.

7. Promoters and Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra

Facts: The Association and NPCIL – 2 petitions – excavation – for Foundation of a building –
for Widening of a water channel – cooling the nuclear plant.
Order to pay penalty - Section 48(7) - Any person who without lawful authority extracts,
removes, collects, replaces, picks up or disposes of any mineral- be liable up to 5 times the
value of the Minerals.
Minerals / Minor Minerals - not defined under MLRC – State banked on the definition of
The Minor Minerals - means building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other
than sand used for prescribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor
• Mineral State banked on a notification issued under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act 1957 – that – declared “ordinary earth” used for
filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways,
buildings etc to be a minor mineral. The said Notification has an inbuilt restriction. It
 is ordinary earth used only for the purposes enumerated therein, namely, filling or
levelling purposes in construction of an embankment, road, railways and buildings
which alone is a minor mineral.
• Excavation of ordinary earth for uses not contemplated in the aforesaid Notification,
therefore, would not amount to a mining activity so as to attract the wrath of the
provisions of either the Code
• As use can only follow extraction or excavation it is the purpose of the excavation
that has to be seen. A blanket determination of liability merely because ordinary
earth was dug up, therefore, would not be justified; what would be required is a
more precise determination of the end use of the excavated earth.
• If looked at it that way - every use of the sod, or piercing of the land with a pick-axe,
would, in that eventuality, require sanction of the authorities. The interpretation so
placed, would frustrate the intention of the grant and lead to patently absurd results.
To equate the earth removed in the process of digging a foundation, or otherwise, as
a mineral product, in that context, would be a murder of an alien but lovely
language.

8. JamnadasMeghji v. State of Gujarat

Facts:
• Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 - 3 Acres – 15 yards of land – adjacent Govt waste
land – encroachment 39 gunthas – Mamlatdar ordered penalty / removal – application
for regularization - approved on payment of occupancy price.

• Development work – expenses incurred – Dy Collector – Suo Motu revision notice – 2

years later – replied to by petitioners - set aside the mamlatdars order.

• Petitioner appealed – dismissed – went to HC - Contended - Notice of Dy Collector –

vague - 'the order of the Mamlatdar is not according to Government laws, circulars and
their provisions, is adverse to the interest of the Government and therefore, required
to be taken into revision – Court granted interim relief – Status Quo

• State contended – powers of mamlatdar – restrictive – Government resolution - 8

acres cap – agricultural / virgin / non-virgin lands – backward / non backward classes
- removal of encroachment¬, is a 'Rule' and regularization of encroachment is an
'Exception’ – power only with the Collector

• Petitioner was not provided a copy of that GR

Held –
• Falls out of the preview of the GR – Waste Land.
• After the order of the Mamlatdar dated 27.09.1990, the Deputy Collector issued notice
for
• taking the matter in 'suo moto' revision on 14.05.1992, i.e. beyond the period of
'reasonable
• time limit’
• Stuck down the orders of the Dy Collector and the Appellate Authority.

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960(State Act) Topic

Details:Case Laws:
 1. M.K. IndrajeetSinhji Cotton Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotton Co-op. Spg. Mills
Ld. &Ors.
Facts - relates to Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 Appellant – entered in to a lease to
- took on lease the mill of the respondent Cooperative
Society – disputes arose – appellant filed a suit for recovery of money – society ran into
rough weather - during pendency of the suit – the society was wound up by the
Commissioner, Cottage and Village Industries, Gujarat – within his rights to do so –
liquidator. Act provided – in cases of winding / liquidation proceedings - no suit or other
legal proceedings shall lie or be proceeded against the society or the liquidator, except by
leave of the Registrar – appellant applied for leave.
Registrar refused - held that the suit itself is not tenable for want of notice – the act
provided that - no suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its officers, in respect of
any act touching the business of the society, until the expiration of two months next after
notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar. Since notice was not given before
instituting the suit – after liquidation proceedings were
initiated - leave to continue with the suit was refused.
Held:
Act casts a duty on the Registrar to grant or refuse leave and only such an administrative
decision can be taken by the Registrar. Further, such a limited administrative decision can
be taken by the Registrar only on considerations germane to the grant or refusal of the leave
and not on considerations which were within the jurisdiction of a competent city civil court.
Registrar acted without jurisdiction; having taken into account a factor which he was not
competent to take into account and determine the grant of leave to proceed with the suit.
As a matter of law the decision to hold that the suit is not tenable is a decision which
conclusively determines the suit and being judicial can be taken by the Civil Court alone.
2. Smt. RamagauriKeshavlal Virani vs. Om WalkeshwarTriveni C.H.S Ltd., Other.
Facts: MOFA provisions:

• Agreement to contain: Carpet area / area of balconies / and also percentage of undivided
interest in the common areas and facilities appertaining to the flat agreed to be sold.

• Promoter can dispose flats even after formation of CHSL. Society contended - from the
sale deed - it was clear that the sale deed was only in respect of the flat initially but
subsequently as an afterthought the same was included to cover the terrace – terrace is
common space – belongs to the society.
Held:
None of the MOFA provisions – as claimed - includes Terrace - common areas, facilities,
carpet area do not include "the terrace" and therefore none of the aforesaid provisions
can be interpreted to mean that a builder or promoter can dispose of the terrace to one
of the purchaser of flat.
Although it was agreed that the builder can sell the flat after a CHSL is formed – it
does not authorize the promoter to sell the terrace of the building. 2 doors endangering security
of the flat - assurance that nothing will be done by the society to endanger the security of the
flat of the petitioner. Interpretation of Agreement – clear – intention only to sell the flat –
terrace added as an after thought. – Even if taken to be true – the said agreement – does not and
cannot cloth the petitioner with rights of ownership over the terrace for want of legal sanctity
or authority in the builder and considering the rights of the society. Judgements of the trial and
appellate court upheld.

3. R. J. Uttamchandani vs. La-Rose C.H.S. Ltd., & Other Facts:

 • Society filled a dispute with the Co Op Court – against member and occupant of the flat –
pending this – an application filed by the society - member and the occupant may be ordered
and directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6074,69 due to the Society in respect of the disputed flat –
in addition occupant to be directed to pay monthly charges till disposal of the case.
• Co Op Court allowed the application and – said there was no dispute that the amount
was o/s – directed the actual occupant to pay to the Society the o/s as well as monthly
payments - without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties.
• Aggrieved – the occupant filed a writ petition – Bombay HC – Contending quashing of the
said order of the Co Op Court - contended that there was no privity of contract between the
society and the occupant and the society was consequently not entitled to demand any payment
from the occupant.
• Society contended – since he is the occupant – he iss enjoying the property – he has to
pay.
Court Held: Held:
• Society cannot be left in the lurch by debarring or preventing it from receiving any
amount whatever in respect of the disputed flat – it has to discharge its own obligations - pay
the statutory taxes and dues - collect the society's dues.
• If members and/or occupants refuse to pay the outgoings the working and the
administration of the society may as well collapse.
• Fairness and justice therefore, does demand payment of the outgoings in respect of the
disputed flat either by the member or by the occupant to the society.
• It is the occupant who is in actual enjoyment and possession - continuing to enjoy the
disputed flat with amenities provided by the society – he cant say he will not pay.
• This would naturally absolve him from paying any such corresponding amount to the
member – once paid will discharge him of his liability to pay to the member.
• Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties – which will be finally
decided in the pending suit. Petition dismissed.
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999(State Act)
4. RambhajiBalkrishna v. RadhabaiMahadeoraoKhode
Facts – Tenant – Landlord agreement – Dispute on ownership of the suit premise –
• Municipal Corporation – served notice - to tenant as an occupant – recovery of taxes –
tenant pays – landlord not intimated – as a result tenant did not pay rent. Landlord sent a
demand notice – 52 months - rent not paid – notice received – not replied to – not objected – 30
days statutory period.
• Landlord went to Court for eviction.
• Tenant contended – taxes paid – adjusted as rent – not in arrears – demand notice itself
bad – ready to deposit 2 years rent in Court.
• Landlord contended – the fact that the tenant is ready to deposit 2 years rent – shows
rent not paid regularly.
• Court of first instance and the appellate Court agreed tenant was in default – decreed the
possession on ground of the default – matter went to HC

The tenant claimed – rent exorbitant / permitted increase questioned.

Held – Demand Notice not replied to – statutory requirements – not complied – Merely because
some amount towards the municipal taxes has been paid by the tenant, unilaterally, that itself
cannot be the reason to held that the demand of arrears of rent for more than six months was, as
made by the respondent was bad. if on receipt of the notice the tenant neither files an
application nor paid or deposit the amount - the landlord would be entitled to evict of the tenant
The raising of dispute for the first time, regarding rent and permitted increases in rent cannot be
helpful, while contesting the eviction proceeding. The case of landlord is proved and both the
Courts below therefore, are right in granting decree on the ground of default.

Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (State Act)

4. NahalchandLaloochand Pvt. Ltd.Vs. PanchaliCHS Ltd.

Facts: Promoter contended - MOFA – defines a flat – has a wide connotation – (include a garage)
expressly mentioned – stilt is garage – hence can be sold to the flat buyers. Further contended -
Garage not defined by MOFA - Which is to be interpreted in a way that - as long as premises have a
covered roof and used for the parking of vehicles, that would qualify as ‘garage’ and since stilt
parking spaces are covered parking spaces and form part of the building, they fall within the
definition of a garage – can be sold with the flat.

Held: The scope of the bracketed phrase has to be seen in the context of the definition given to the
word ‘flat - bracket does not bring in garage’ by itself within the meaning of word ‘flat’ – intention of
the legislature to be looked at – can a garage be taken to mean a flat – so a flat does not include a
garage. Since garage not defined by MOFA – look at other avenues - What is contemplated by a
‘garage’ in is a place having a roof and walls on three sides – Stilt may be usable as a parking space
but for the purposes of MOFA, such portion could be treated as garage - Stilt parking is a part of
common areas. The stilt parking spaces cannot be put on sale by the developer as he ceases to have
any title on the same as soon as the occupation certificate is issued by the Corporation and it
becomes the property of the society - the building as well as the stilt parking spaces, open spaces
and all common amenities become the property of the Society.

Appeal fails.