'Bureaucrats Cannot Act High-Handedly, Owe A Duty To Public': Bombay High Court Axes Acquisition Of Tribal Lands In Maharashtra’s Nandurbar

Observing that procedural laws dealing with citizens’ right to hold property aren’t merely ornamental and cannot be taken away, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) set aside a land acquisition and compensation order “highhandedly” and hastily passed by IAS officer Minal Karanwal Assistant Collector, Nandurbar, Maharashtra.Justices Ravindra Ghuge and YG Khobragade pulled up Karanwal for the manner in which the land acquisition was executed against tribals from the very outset, giving them just one day notice for a hearing, passing an order without hearing and compensating them less by terming their industrial lands as agricultural lands. It observed,“Bureaucrats cannot act high-handedly. They owe a duty towards the public at large. The procedural laws are not ornamental when they deal with the substantial rights of the citizens of the Country, more so, in relation to the right of holding a property which cannot be taken away in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to do so is not only an illegal act, but, would display an intention of overbearing the rule of law.”Accordingly, the court directed a newly appointed Competent Authority to conduct a re-hearing and award compensation treating the petitioners' lands as Industrial NA. The bench adjudicated the petitioners' civil application despite an alternate remedy and observed that non-intervention would result in “rubbing salt on the injuries already suffered” by the petitioners and would be a “travesty of justice.”Facts Petitioners Govind Poslya Gavit and Vilas Vijaysing Valvi filed a writ petition in June 2023 challenging the notifications under section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 terming their lands as agricultural lands for a National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) road widening. In the meantime, the Assistant Collector (AC) passed the compensation award against which the petitioners approached the High Court. Through advocate DS Bagul the petitioners submitted they had purchased 25,800 sq meters of land in Mauje Gangapur, Navapur Taluka, Nandurbar in 2017. The same year the lands were granted Industrial NA (non-agricultural) permission and subsequently Commercial NA for an additional sum. He submitted that the petitioners were constrained to approach the High Court twice before and the court directed the Collector to follow the procedure under sections 3-A to 3-C and issue a declaration under section 3D, and thereafter, an award could be delivered under section 3G.But in the meantime, Assistant Collector Karanwal directed the sub divisional officer to suo-motu initiate revisional proceedings and the petitioners’ land was converted back to Industrial NA. She also rejected their appeals and recorded their lands as agricultural lands in a Notification published under Section 3D of the Act. The petitioners then approached the High Court and filed the present petition in June 2023 and also raised an objection to Karanwal against their lands being considered as agricultural land. Bagul argued that Karanwal issued notice to the petitioners on June 28 and asked them to remain present for a hearing on June 30 at 11am, June 29 being a holiday. On June 30 they were informed that the Assistant Collector was on Official tour due to the Guardian Minister’s visit. But the compensation award was delivered the same evening at 5.50pm without hearing the petitioners. The respondents claimed the petitioners should have waited till the end of office hours for the Assistant Collector to return. But the court was of the view the matter could’ve simply been heard on another day by giving the petitioners a proper hearing. The bench further noted that according to a circular issued by the Law and Judiciary Department dated July 14, all departments are mandatorily required to grant 5 days’ notice to the parties for a hearing. “We do not approve of this conduct on the part of the competent authority in expecting the Petitioners to sit in the office and wait till her return on the pretext that the office timing is up to 6.15 p.m. A pragmatic approach should have been adopted.. It is apparent that the principles of natural justice having not been followed,” the bench noted. The sequence of events clearly indicate that the competent authority had actually rushed through the proceedings with electric speed and orders were being passed by the same competent authority (officer in charge) in quick succession, the court noted. “At each stage, this Court has intervened and the elaborate judgment dated 05.05.2022 speaks volumes about the manner in which the authorities were proceeding to take possession of the lands of the Petitioners without adherence to the procedure of acquisition,” it added. Regarding NHAI’s contention that it wasn’t going to accept the petitioners' land as industrial NA merely because the 7/11 extract said so, the court observed that NHAI didn’t have the powers to decide land status. “If the Industrial NA status is visible...

'Bureaucrats Cannot Act High-Handedly, Owe A Duty To Public': Bombay High Court Axes Acquisition Of Tribal Lands In Maharashtra’s Nandurbar

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags