In a significant ruling on delayed land acquisition, the Bombay High Court has held that acquisition proceedings relating to land taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) lapsed because the mandatory declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued beyond the statutory one-year period. Instead of directing restoration of the land which has already been used for public purposes the Court exercised its constitutional powers to shift the date of the acquisition notification and directed a fresh determination of compensation.
Background of the Case
The petitioners are owners of land at Borla and Deonar, Mumbai. The Municipal Corporation took possession of portions of their land as far back as October 1960 for public purposes, including schools, roads and other civic utilities. While compensation was paid for some acquired portions through agreements and subsequent awards, about 9,295.25 square metres remained without formal acquisition despite remaining in the Corporation's possession for decades.
The dispute led to several rounds of litigation over the years. Earlier proceedings resulted in directions to complete acquisition and determine compensation. In 2001, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award, but it was later set aside by the High Court after the Municipal Corporation challenged the method adopted for calculating compensation. The Supreme Court subsequently directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award after considering all issues raised by the parties.
When the petitioners argued before the SLAO that the acquisition itself had lapsed because the Section 6 declaration was issued after the statutory deadline, the officer rejected the plea, stating that the issue had already been dealt with by the High Court and the Supreme Court. This order became the subject of the present writ petition.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court Examines the Delay in Acquisition
The Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat first examined whether the SLAO was correct in refusing to consider the petitioners' plea.
The Court found that both the High Court and the Supreme Court had expressly left all legal issues open for consideration before the SLAO after the earlier award was set aside. Therefore, the officer wrongly concluded that he was barred from examining the issue of lapse of acquisition.
"The liberty granted by this Court and the Supreme Court permitted the parties to raise all issues before the SLAO,"
the Bench observed while holding that the rejection order could not be sustained.
Declaration Under Section 6 Was Beyond One Year
The Bench then examined the statutory timeline under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
It noted that the notification under Section 4 was published on 23 December 1999, whereas the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 5 January 2001 and published thereafter. Since the declaration came beyond the mandatory one-year period prescribed by the first proviso to Section 6, the Court held that it was legally void.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions including Vijay Narayan Thatte v. State of Maharashtra and Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, the Bench observed:
"The declaration under Section 6... is rendered a nullity and the acquisition process lapsed."
The Court further emphasised that once an acquisition lapses by operation of law, no judicial order can revive it.
Property Rights Cannot Be Ignored
The Bench expressed concern that although possession had been taken in 1960, compensation for the remaining land had still not been paid.
Referring to Article 300A of the Constitution, the Court observed that the petitioners' constitutional right to property had been violated. It also cited Supreme Court judgments recognising the right to property as an important constitutional and human right.
The judges were critical of the prolonged delay, noting that the Municipal Corporation had continued to oppose the petitioners' claims even after retaining possession of the land for several decades without completing lawful acquisition.
Court Balances Public Interest with Owners' Rights
Ordinarily, once acquisition lapses, the land would have to be returned to the owners. However, the Court found that such a direction would not be practical because the land had already been developed for public purposes, including municipal schools and public infrastructure.
Following Supreme Court precedents, the Bench decided to mould the relief by shifting the effective date of the Section 4 notification instead of disturbing existing public projects.
"The notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is shifted to 26.08.2011,"
the Court directed, holding that compensation should now be calculated based on the market value prevailing on that date.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Bombay High Court quashed the SLAO's order dated 19 July 2011 and declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because the Section 6 declaration was issued beyond the statutory period. Exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court shifted the Section 4 notification date to 26 August 2011 and directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award by determining compensation on the market value as of that date within three months.
The petitioners were also held entitled to all statutory benefits available under law, with directions regarding adjustment and disbursal of any compensation already deposited.
Case Details:
Case Title: Yeshwant Waman Patil and 11 Others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1755 of 2011
Judge: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Decision Date: 3 July 2026
