The Bombay High Court has dismissed five writ petitions seeking additional compensation for portions of land reserved for internal roads and open spaces during acquisition for the Nagpur-Mumbai Samruddhi Mahamarg.
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat held that the landowners had voluntarily entered into compensation agreements under Section 19-B(2) of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, accepted the amounts offered, and handed over possession of the entire notified land.
Background Of The Case
The petitions concerned lands situated at Lahe and Birwadi villages in Shahpur, Thane district, which were acquired for the Samruddhi Mahamarg.
The State had issued acquisition notifications in July and November 2018. Compensation was subsequently settled through agreements executed in 2019 and 2020. Under the State's policy, landowners who opted for acquisition by agreement received an additional 25% compensation. Possession of the entire notified land was then handed over to the authorities.
The dispute arose because the petitioners later claimed compensation for portions reserved for internal roads and open spaces. They argued that the agreements mentioned smaller areas and therefore did not cover the remaining portions of the acquired land.
Court's Observation
The Bench rejected that interpretation. It noted that the District Level Committee had specifically recorded that no compensation would be paid for land covered by internal roads and open spaces. Those decisions were incorporated into the compensation agreements, which the landowners accepted as the basis for determining the amount payable.
The Court also relied on the legal principle that where landowners voluntarily agree to compensation and accept it without protest, the agreed amount is treated as final compensation.
"The quantum of compensation agreed between the parties, in terms of the said agreements, has to be treated as just compensation. No change can be made therein and that too, at the behest of power of attorney holders / assignees," the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that several claims were raised four to five years after possession had been handed over. It also considered the role of power-of-attorney holders and assignees in some petitions and found serious concerns regarding the manner in which the proceedings had been instituted.
Decision
The Bombay High Court found no substance in the petitions and held that the claimed additional compensation could not be granted. It also dismissed the two interim applications seeking to add original landowners as co-petitioners.
Accordingly, all five writ petitions were dismissed and the pending applications were disposed of.
 Supreme Court-300x169.webp)
