Bombay High Court Refuses Compensation Claim Under 2013 Land Acquisition Act Due To Suppression Of Material Facts

The Bombay High Court has held that litigants who indulge in material suppression of facts while invoking writ jurisdiction cannot claim the benefit of leniency in delay on the ground of violation of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The Court observed that although the right to property is a constitutional right, litigants approaching the writ court must do so with clean hands.

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a writ petition filed by landowners seeking release of 25.39 acres of land acquired in Village Wakad, Pune district, or alternatively compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The acquisition proceedings began in March 1970. An award was passed in September 1986 determining compensation. The petitioners refused to accept the compensation, following which the amount was deposited in the treasury. In the present writ petition filed in 2012, the petitioners initially sought the return of the retained land. They amended the petition in 2023 to seek monetary compensation, contending that compensation had never been paid and that their constitutional right under Article 300A had been violated.

While examining the petitioners' claim for compensation under the 2013 Act, the Court noted that in earlier litigation filed by the petitioners in 1993, they had expressly stated that it had been agreed between them and the authorities that 25.39 acres of land would be retained for the project and that they would not claim compensation for that portion while the remaining 76.17 acres would be released. The Court found that this statement was contained in the pleadings of the earlier writ petition but had not been disclosed by the petitioners in the present proceedings.

The Bench held that suppression of this material fact amounted to deliberate concealment because the petitioners had taken a completely contrary stand in the present petition by seeking compensation under the 2013 Act through an amendment made decades later. The Court observed that such suppression constituted a serious abuse of the writ jurisdiction.

“… when it is found that the petitioners have approached the Court and indulged in suppression of material facts, in order to mislead the Court, such petitioners are not entitled to any relief either interim or final… the conduct of the petitioners in the present case amounts to approaching the writ Court with unclean hands...,” the Court observed.

The Court also rejected the petitioners' reliance on decisions where delay was condoned in cases involving deprivation of property under Article 300A. It held that those precedents did not apply where the litigant had suppressed material facts and taken inconsistent positions before the court. It observed:

“… the petitioners cannot rely upon the line of judgments, pertaining to Article 300A of the Constitution of India in the context of the question of delay and laches. The said position of law cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioners, particularly when they have indulged in suppression of material facts and misled this Court in the present writ petition.”

Holding that the petitioners were guilty of deliberate suppression and that the land had been acquired and utilised for the stated public purpose, the High Court declined to grant either return of land or compensation under the 2013 Act and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Bhalchandra Chintaman Deo & Ors. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pune & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6353 of 2012]

Click Here To Read/Download Order