The Supreme Court of India reprimanded a lawyer representing the Maharashtra government in a land compensation case, criticizing the submission of an affidavit deemed “contemptuous” by a senior IAS officer. The court expressed that the lawyer should not have allowed such an affidavit to be filed. In response, the lawyer immediately apologized and informed the court that the state was withdrawing the affidavit. However, the court’s ire remained, leading it to order the IAS officer to appear in person. The Supreme Court also reminded the lawyer that they should not merely act as a client’s postman but should fulfill their role as an officer of the court.
The case involves land that the state of Maharashtra illegally occupied six decades ago. The Supreme Court is currently considering options to provide the rightful landowner with fair compensation. The court has directed the Maharashtra government to ascertain the current market value of the land near Pune. While the state had initially agreed to compensate Rs. 37 crore, the court insisted on receiving an updated valuation.
In response to the court’s query, the IAS officer submitted a statement noting that both the landowner and the court would not accept the Pune Collector’s latest valuation. He stressed that it is the state’s responsibility to determine appropriate compensation according to legal provisions. The latest assessment indicated that the compensation would amount to Rs. 48.6 crore.
The Maharashtra government had proposed providing alternative land within the Pune municipal area instead of monetary compensation, but the landowner rejected this offer. The court then asked the landowner’s counsel, Dhruv Mehta, to consult with his client about whether they preferred monetary compensation or land in exchange. The court also directed that both parties should inspect the proposed land together.
The Supreme Court noted that the state had not calculated the compensation based on the current market rate, accusing it of employing delaying tactics. The court remarked, “It is evident that the state has not lived up to the assurances made by its counsel to the court. The state has again reiterated its willingness to provide compensation at the 1989 rate along with interest on that amount. If the state had a specific purpose for requesting time, it should have worked on this matter and provided a fair assessment of the compensation amount. It appears that the state is merely trying to prolong the case.”
