The Bombay High Court has strongly asserted that the State cannot violate the rights of citizens from rural areas simply because they lack education or timely access to legal remedies. The Court held that such citizens, even if they do not immediately approach the courts, are still entitled to equal protection under the law and must not be deprived of their constitutional rights.
A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan made these observations while hearing a batch of petitions filed by families in Kolhapur district. These families had voluntarily handed over their land in September 1990 for the Dudhganga Irrigation Project, but no formal land acquisition award had been issued, nor was any compensation paid to them for decades.
"In a society governed by the rule of law, there can be no discrimination in the application of law to persons who are similarly placed... Likes should be treated alike, the bench remarked, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The Court condemned the State’s refusal to pay compensation, despite using the land for a public purpose. It underlined that just because the petitioners—who belonged to rural backgrounds—had delayed approaching the court, their rights could not be dismissed as "dead rights."
Any breach of such fundamental mandates has no place in a civilised society... Rights cannot be defeated merely because of delay in approaching the Court, the Court said.
The petitioners claimed they were unaware of their legal rights and approached the authorities only in 2021, after more than 30 years. Their plea for compensation was rejected by the government on the ground of unexplained delay. However, the Court sided with the petitioners, highlighting the deep gap in legal awareness and access in rural areas.
The law cannot be applied in such a manner that their rights would be regarded as dead rights the Court said, adding that the State has a constitutional duty to apply the law fairly and uniformly.
The bench pointed out that even though the petitioner voluntarily gave up her land, she never gave up her right to receive compensation, as confirmed by her affidavit.
Depriving the petitioner of her land without following due process and without compensation is a gross violation of her constitutional rights under Article 300A of the Constitution, the Court observed.
The State’s failure to include the petitioner’s land in the acquisition award, despite taking possession and using it to rehabilitate project-affected persons, was termed “astonishing” by the bench.
"State cannot deny payment of compensation having dispossessed the petitioner and taken away ownership," the judges added.
The Court ordered the Maharashtra Government to calculate and pay the appropriate compensation to the petitioners without further delay. It reiterated that no citizen, irrespective of their social or economic background, should be deprived of fundamental rights because of administrative failures or systemic neglect.
Advocates Nitin Deshpande, Kanchan Phatak, and Rachana Harpale represented the petitioners, while Assistant Government Pleader S.B. Kalel appeared for the State.
Case Title: Sumitra Khane vs Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition (Writ Petition 4987 of 2022)
