Supreme Court slams Maharashtra officials for non-payment of land acquisition compensation, orders recovery of costs from guilty officials

The Supreme Court today criticized the Maharashtra authorities for failing to pay timely compensation to people whose lands were compulsorily acquired by the State back in 2005.

a bank of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh dealt with the plea of ​​the petitioner (Director of Accounts and Finance, Zilla Parishad, Beed) against an order of the High Court, directing Zilla Parishad to pay compensation to the respondent-plaintiffs for the compulsory acquisition of their land in 2005.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the land in question was acquired by the state government (through its collector) and therefore it was not the responsibility of the petitioner to pay compensation. Hearing him and suggesting that the amount could be recovered from the collector, Justice Kant commented: “Are you separated from Maharashtra?”

When the lawyer insisted that the petitioner was not liable to pay as he was not even a party to the reference/execution proceedings, the court expressed its dismay in the order as follows:

“This is a classic case where the officials/authorities of the state of Maharashtra have brazenly defied the law, thereby depriving (…) the owners of the due amount of compensation for their acquired land…None was paid compensation amount, forcing the landowners to initiate enforcement proceedings to recover the compensation amount of Rs 1,49,54,527…we are completely disappointed with the way the state authorities have behaved in this case.” .

Without commenting further on the “(mis)conduct” of the Maharashtra officials, the Court dismissed the Zilla Parishad plea and ordered:

– Principal Secretary (Government of Maharashtra), Principal Secretary (Finance) and Principal Secretary (Panchayat and Developments) will take cognizance of the matter within a week;

– The necessary suggestion will be made so that the defendants are given the amount of compensation, together with the interest to date, as well as the exemplary costs determined by the reference court;

– Payments due must be made to the defendant owners and other similarly situated owners by January 31, 2025 and a compliance report to this effect must be filed with the Superior Court;

– The Principal Secretary will seek explanations from the Collector, Beed and then determine the department concerned which was responsible for paying the compensation and take appropriate action against the offending officials; and

– The cost of Rs 1 lakh (imposed by the Bombay High Court) will be recovered personally from the officers found guilty/responsible for non-payment of compensation amount.

It was also observed that the High Court made certain observations against the collector in its judgement, instead of summoning him suo motu and passing a suitable sentence on him for contempt of court. As such, the Court directed that if the necessary is not done by January 31, 2025, the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court will present the matter for registration of suo motu proceedings for contempt of court against all officials and the Superior Court will then proceed. against them in accordance with the law.

Background

The state of Maharashtra has issued an order for the construction of a water tank in a village in Beed district. For the same reason, the lands of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were acquired in the year 2005. Reference was made regarding the compensation to be paid for said acquisition, which was allowed in the year 2015. Since the compensation was not paid, the filed an application for The plaintiffs in the execution petition claimed that although the amount was in the account of the director of accounts and finance, Zilla Parishad, it had not been paid.

In 2023, the Civil Judge of First Instance issued an order to pay the amount. As no amount was paid, the Civil Court attached the bank account of the petitioner Zilla Parishad. The order of the Civil Court was challenged before the Bombay High Court, where Zilla Parishad claimed that it was not liable to pay compensation as it was not an independent party in the reference proceedings. Rather, the responsibility of compensating the acquired land (under the Employee Guarantee Scheme) lay with the Collector/State of Maharashtra.

The High Court ruled in favor of the defendants-plaintiffs, stating, “All the departments of the State of Maharashtra are integrated and inseparable members and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner is not responsible for the execution of the decree.” Furthermore, it was observed that the order of the reference proceeding had become final as it had not been challenged.

“This Court finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that ordinarily the plaintiffs have to beg before government officials even for compensation due to the authorities/officials of the state government as if they were beggars and were not entitled to compensation to The claimants here must also run from pillar to post for 19 years.”added the High Court.

Furthermore, the High Court disapproved of the apathy shown by the State of Maharashtra (represented by its Collector) towards payment of compensation to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, the petition filed by Zilla Parishad, Beed was dismissed. A cost of Rs 1 lakh (with joint and several liability on Zilla Parishad and the Government of Maharashtra) was imposed in case the plaintiffs were not paid the full amount of compensation, plus interest, within a period of four weeks.

Case Title: KONDIRAM MANIKRAO NIMBALKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 5/2025