Supreme Court Urges Maharashtra Government To Act On Land Acquisition Case From Pune
Supreme Court Limits State Power To Claim Private Property For Community Use
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed the Maharashtra government to take concrete action in a land acquisition case in Pune. The court, led by Justices Bhushan Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan, referenced the “Ladki Bahin” scheme and warned that failure to provide appropriate compensation could halt government schemes. The case dates back to the 1950s when the petitioner’s ancestors purchased 24 acres of land in Pune. In 1963, the state government seized the land, declaring it as government property. However, compensation for this acquisition has never been provided.
According to Advocate Nishant Kotneshwar, the background is as follows: The petitioner was an “Inamdar” when the Inams Abolition Act came into effect in Maharashtra. The petitioner failed to pay the mandatory fee, leading to the land being taken by the government. The 24 acres of land was then handed over to the Defense and is now the site of an Armament Research Center.
Later, the petitioner’s ancestors filed a claim in court, which eventually reached the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the land should have been returned to them or appropriate compensation provided. The petitioner initially sought compensation or land equivalent to the original area, but was instead offered land in Lavale, which was rejected. Eventually, land in Kondhwa was allocated, but it was declared a forest area and could not be handed over.
In a petition before the Supreme Court, the complainant has demanded the highest possible compensation, a matter on which the government has already presented its position. According to the government, the compensation should be based on the market value at the time, including interest, totaling Rs 37 crore 42 lakh and 50 thousand. However, the complainant argues that this amount is insufficient. The court is scheduled to revisit the case, engage with officials, and seek a resolution, as stated by Advocate Nishant Kotneshwar.
The Supreme Court’s recent directive emphasizes the need for the Maharashtra government to resolve the issue and provide due compensation.
