Supreme Court Criticizes Maharashtra Govt For Allocating Notified Forest Land As Compensation For Illegal Property Acquisition
While hearing the TN Godavarman case, an omnibus forest protection matter, the Supreme Court recently pulled up Maharashtra state authorities for allotting a notified forest land to a person as compensation for illegally taking away another property of his. Taking note of the fact that the applicant succeeded in all litigations against the state upto the Supreme Court, and the alternate...
While hearing the TN Godavarman case, an omnibus forest protection matter, the Supreme Court recently pulled up Maharashtra state authorities for allotting a notified forest land to a person as compensation for illegally taking away another property of his.
Taking note of the fact that the applicant succeeded in all litigations against the state upto the Supreme Court, and the alternate land allotted turned out to be notified forest land, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said, "the predecessors-in-title of the petition succeeded upto this court for getting possession of the land which was illegally occupied by the state government...the records show that the land which was allotted to the petitioners is notified forest land...in any case, the applicants who have succeeded upto this court cannot be denied the benefits of the decree passed in their favor. Firstly, the action of the state government in impinging upon a private citizen's land was itself illegal. Secondly, the state ought to have taken due precaution before allotting a piece of land...[land] notified as forest could not have been allotted...state ought to have allotted a land with clear title".
Calling a clear stand from the state, the court permitted the applicant to place on record the rates for the two pieces of land ie the original land which was occupied by the state and the alternate land which was allotted by the state but found to be forest land.
"Though the matter is pending for almost last [...] years, the state has not come up with a concrete proposal. We therefore direct the state government to come with a clear stand as to whether another piece of equivalent land will be offered to the applicant, or as to whether adequate compensation would be paid to the applicant, or as to whether the state proposes to move the central government for denotification of the said land as forest land."
It was clarified that if the state is found to be avoiding taking a clear stand, the court would be compelled to direct presence of the Chief Secretary.
The bench of Justices Gavai and Viswanathan was hearing an interlocutory application filed by a litigant, claiming that his predecessors-in-interest purchased a 24-acre land in Pune in 1950s. When the state government occupied that land, they instituted a suit and won all the way upto the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the decree was sought to be executed, but the state made a statement that the land had been given to a Defense Institute. The Defense Institute, on its part, claimed that it was not a party to the dispute and therefore could not be evicted.
Thereafter, the applicant moved the Bombay High Court, praying that he be allotted alternate land. The High Court issued strictures against the state for not allotting alternate land for 10 years. As such, in 2004, an alternate land was finally allotted. But eventually, the Central Empowered Committee informed the applicant that the said land was part of notified forest area.
Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta (appearing for the applicant) urged before the court that the applicant fought three rounds of litigation over 50 years, yet when he was ultimately allotted alternate land, the same turned out to be forest land.
Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar, in addition, pointed out that the state filed an affidavit in 2015 saying that it would pay Rs.14 lakhs to the applicant in lieu of the 24-acre land. He stated that the offer was extremely unfair, as it value the land at the rates of 1963: "completely unfair...the litigant having won all the way upto the Supreme Court against the state...unable to take possession of the land because the Union Defense Institute is there...getting alternate land after High Court...after 10 years of litigation...after that if you offer 14 lakhs...the state should come up with a reasonable compensation".
Hearing the counsels, Justice Gavai posed to the state's counsel, "[right to property] even if not fundamental, is still a constitutional right...how can you take somebody's property?"
The matter was adjourned to await the response of the state government on how it would compensate the applicant.
Case Title: IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995