The Supreme Court has issued a stern directive to the Maharashtra government, demanding a “reasonable” compensation for a private landowner whose property was illegally used by the state over six decades ago. The hearing, which took place on Tuesday, saw Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan expressing dissatisfaction with the state’s handling of the issue.
The case revolves around a piece of land that was occupied by the state government since 1963, where structures were subsequently built for the Armament Research Development Establishment Institute (ARDEI), a unit of the central government’s defense department. Despite the land being later recognized as forest land, the Maharashtra government offered an initial compensation of Rs 37.42 crore, which the court deemed potentially insufficient.
“If we do not find the amount to be reasonable, we will direct the structure, may be in the national interest or public interest, to be demolished,” Justice Gavai warned. He further threatened to halt state schemes like “Ladli Behna” if a satisfactory resolution was not presented. “Come with a reasonable figure. Ask your chief secretary to speak to the chief minister. Otherwise, we will stop all those schemes,” he added during the proceedings.
The bench has asked the state’s counsel to consult with the chief secretary for a higher compensation figure and postponed the matter for further hearing. However, due to the chief secretary’s engagement in a cabinet meeting, the hearing was adjourned until Wednesday.
This legal battle highlights the challenges in land allocation and compensation by state authorities, particularly when dealing with properties occupied under dubious legal circumstances. The Supreme Court’s ultimatum underscores the urgency of resolving such disputes fairly and equitably, reflecting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding private property rights against governmental overreach.
Also Read
The court’s previous remarks from a July 23 order emphasized the illegality of the state’s actions and the inadequacy of the compensation land, which was also entangled in legal and environmental stipulations. “Firstly, the action of the state government in encroaching upon the land of a citizen was itself illegal. Secondly, the state government ought to have taken due precaution before allotting a piece of land,” the order stated, highlighting the need for a clear and marketable title in land allocations.
