The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, held that compensation for land surrendered for public purposes must be paid without the need for a formal request. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of Article 300-A, which guarantees the right to property. The ruling emphasizes that once compensation is determined, it becomes the State's duty to ensure payment, and any undue delay could result in a breach of constitutional rights.
Facts of the Case
The case revolved around the issue of compensation owed to landowners who had surrendered portions of their land for public utilities, such as roads, to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The petitioners had developed amenities on the land at their own expense and were entitled to receive compensation through Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and Floor Space Index (FSI). However, a dispute arose concerning the extent of compensation they were entitled to after an amendment to the Development Control Regulations (DCR) in 2016.
Contentions of the Parties
The landowners argued that they were entitled to 100% of the TDR for the land surrendered and the amenities constructed, based on a previous Supreme Court judgment in the Godrej & Boyce I case. However, the MCGM contended that the 2016 amendment to DCR limited the compensation to only 25% of the constructed area. This amendment, the MCGM argued, should apply to the petitioners, reducing their entitlement to TDR.
High Court's Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions filed by some of the landowners on grounds of delay and laches, suggesting that they had not approached the court in a timely manner. The High Court, however, upheld the claim that the 2016 DCR amendment could not apply retroactively to land surrendered and developed before the amendment. Despite recognizing the petitioners' rights, the High Court's dismissal on the grounds of delay led to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court bench, led by Justices BV Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, overturned the Bombay High Court's decision regarding delay and laches. The Court ruled that compensation must be provided once determined, regardless of whether a formal request is made by the landowners. Citing Article 300-A, the Court emphasized that it is the State’s responsibility to ensure that compensation is paid promptly, without unnecessary delays, as this right is constitutionally protected.
The Court further held that the doctrine of delay and laches did not apply in this case, as the landowners' claims had not caused any prejudice to the MCGM, nor had the delay resulted in the creation of third-party rights. The Court referred to several previous judgments, including Godrej & Boyce I and Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., which established precedents on the issue of compensation and delay in such cases.
Key Observations
The Supreme Court made it clear that the doctrine of delay and laches should not apply when the State has failed to meet its obligations under the Constitution. The Court noted that the delays in compensating the landowners were primarily due to the MCGM’s failure to comply with the regulations, rather than any fault on the part of the landowners.
The Court also reaffirmed the principle that amendments to laws cannot be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated. In this case, the 2016 amendment to DCR, which limited TDR to 25%, could not be imposed on land that had already been surrendered and developed before the amendment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's ruling is a reaffirmation of the right to property as guaranteed under Article 300-A. By holding that compensation for surrendered land must be paid without a formal request and cannot be subject to undue delay, the Court has reinforced the principle that the State must uphold its constitutional duties. The ruling provides relief to landowners who have long awaited their compensation and sets a precedent for future cases involving land acquisition for public purposes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.