Bombay HC Imposes ₹1.5L Costs On MHADA, Municipal Corporation For Holding Possession Of Properties Beyond Requisition Period

Observing that the Bombay Land Requisition Act and the MHADA Act are two independent legislations, a division bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that no provision in either of the Acts exempts the State Government from publishing a Notification for acquiring the land, merely because there was a prior requisition order.

The Court was considering the landowners/petitioners' prayer for restoration and possession of their properties in Solapur, whose possession was taken over by the State-respondent authorities after a requisition order by the Collector of Solapur in July 1987. The petitioners had agreed to compensation of Rs. 1 lakh per hectare towards the requisition of their properties.

While the requisition was continuing, the State Government proposed to acquire the petitioners' properties for the construction of a road and Nalla. It published a Notice on 24 August 1987 under the proviso to Section 41 of the MHADA Act.

However, after publishing the Notice, the State Government did not issue any Notification as provided under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act to complete the acquisition.

As the respondent authorities continued to hold possession of the properties beyond the requisition period, the petitioners prayed for restoration of their properties. The petitioners contended that the requisition could not have continued beyond July 2011 in view of Section 9(1A) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, which provides that the requisition period cannot continue beyond 24 years.

However, the State authorities argued that the 'acquisition' of the petitioners' properties were complete under the MHADA Act. They contended that since the possession of the petitioners' properties was already taken over by the State Government under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, there was no further necessity of issuing any final notification under Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act.

Notice and Notification under MHADA Act

The High Court referring to Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act, noted that the provision contemplates issuing and publishing 'a notification', as opposed to a 'notice' under proviso to Section 41(1). It remarked that the distinctions between the two provisions cannot be ignored by any canons of interpretation.

The Court also observed that the notification under Section 41(1) MHADA Act requires the State Government to 'decide to acquire the land'.

Here, the Court noted that Notice of the State Government dated 24 August 1987 merely stated that it 'proposes to acquire' the said properties and asked the landowners to show cause as to why the lands should not be acquired. It noted that the said Notice made a specific reference to the proviso of Section 41(1) which deals with 'notice'.

In view of this, the Court found that the State Government did not publish a 'notification' to acquire the said properties under Section 41 MHADA Act.

“For all the above reasons, the attempt to pass of the notice dated 24 August 1987, which is clearly issued under the proviso to Section 41(1), and which merely required the petitioners to show as to why their land should not be acquired, cannot pass muster. Based on the notice dated 24 August 1987 and in the absence of any notification as contemplated by Section 41(1) of the MHADA Act, we cannot hold that the petitioners' lands stood acquired by the State Government and validly handed over to MHADA under Section 41 of the MHADA Act.”

Possession Beyond Requisition Period

The Court stated that as the lands had not been acquired under the MHADA Act, the State could not have continued to hold the possession of the said lands beyond the requisition period.

It clarified that the requisition is a temporary measure and cannot be continued indefinitely. Taking note of Section 9(1A) of the Requisition Act, it observed that the requisition period cannot continue beyond 24 years.

The Court thus rejected the State authorities' contention and stated that taking possession of lands under requisition does not do away with the mandate of issuing a final notification under Section 41(1) MHADA Act.

In the present case, it noted that the period expired around July 2011 and thus the authorities could not have requisitioned the properties beyond the time frame. Nonetheless, the Court was of the view that since the lands were already being used as a road and for widening of Nalla time could be granted to the State authorities to acquire the lands, if they did not intend to restore it to the petitioners.

“Still, because the Petitioners' said properties are now used as a road and for the widening of Nalla, the interests of justice would require that the Respondents be granted one year to initiate and complete the acquisition proceedings and acquire the Petitioners' said properties if they do not wish to restore the said properties to the Petitioners.”

Therefore, while declaring the continuation of the requisition of properties illegal, the Court granted the State authorities 1 year time to complete the acquisition proceedings. It stated that if such acquisition is not completed within 1 year, they will have to restore the possession of the properties to the petitioners.

The Court also imposed costs of Rs. 50000 on MHADA and Solapur Municipal Corporation, to be paid to the petitioners.

Case title: Dnyaneshwar Lingappa Bhosale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.5109 Of 2017)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 7