Bombay High Court Pulls Up CIDCO For 'Obstinate Approach' To Avoid Land Acquisition Compensation Payment
The Bombay High Court has expressed its displeasure at the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) for attempting to avoid payment of compensation to the petitioners. The Court treated the assurance of payment given by the CIDCO as an undertaking given to the Court and directed the State authorities to disburse the amount to the petitioners.
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing a contempt petition concerning non-compliance with the directions issued by the Court on November 26, 2024. By the said judgment, the Collector was directed to compute the balance compensation payable to the petitioners along with applicable interest under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pay the same within six weeks. The State contended that the amount was required to be deposited by CIDCO with the State authorities and thereafter disbursed to the petitioners.
The Court found substance in the petitioners' contention that the issue raised by the State could, at best, be treated as an internal arrangement, but compliance with the positive direction within the stipulated period was necessary.
The Court noted that CIDCO have adopted an obstinate approach to escape the liability of payment of compensation to the petitioners and from abiding by the positive direction issued in the judgment and order for payment of compensation.
The Court also noted that CIDCO's submission on the present occasion was that it was contemplating filing an SLP against the July 3, 2026 order dismissing its review petition. It expressed surprise as to how such a reason could come to the assistance of the respondents.
“We fail to understand how the said submission can assist the officers of respondent – CIDCO or for that matter, the officers of the respondent – State authorities, from avoiding compliance of the positive direction issued by this Court,” the Court remarked.
After the matter was called out again, counsel appearing for CIDCO stated that the amount would be deposited with the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition. The Court treated the statement as an undertaking given to the Court and directed the State authorities to disburse the amount to the petitioners.
The Court further directed a responsible State officer to file an affidavit within three weeks giving details of the enquiry and action taken.
Case Title: Ashok Gangadhar Puranik v. State of Maharashtra [Contempt Petition No. 413 of 2026 in Writ Petition No. 1983 of 2023]