Thirty-Seven Years On, The Court Fixed A Date And Started The Clock
Six thousand nine hundred square metres went to a telecom company in 1989. No award followed. The Bombay High Court has ordered compensation worked out under the 2013 Act.
The Court held it can, under Article 226, fix a specific date for determining market value, and treated this as a case where acquisition was initiated but no award was made. It fixed 6 May 2005, the date the petition was filed. Compensation is to be determined under the 2013 Act with all statutory benefits, plus rental compensation for 1989 to 2005 — and MTNL bears the financial burden, having enjoyed the property.
- Article 300A did the work. The compensation is recognition of the petitioners' right to property.
- Possession was not restored — the Court declined that relief, leaving only the quantum to be worked out.
- Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act supplies the machinery, the acquisition having been initiated under the old Act without an award.
- Rs 5 lakh lying in court since 2006 is released with interest and adjusted against the final figure.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2005
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2005
- Decided
- 7 September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition allowed; compensation to be determined under the 2013 Act
What the Court could and could not do
The Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift or postpone the date of the preliminary notification. Only where a court concludes in exceptional circumstances that the acquisition proceedings themselves are liable to be quashed can that date be moved, by the Supreme Court under Article 32 or 142 or a High Court under Article 226.
Following that position, the Court held that while exercising power under Article 226 it can fix a specific date for determining market value, which then becomes the basis for compensation.
It was not inclined to grant restoration of possession of the land. The only exercise that could be carried out was determining the quantum of compensation, amounting to just, fair and reasonable compensation in recognition of the petitioners' right under Article 300A.
The date, and the statute applied
The Court treated this as a case where acquisition was initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act but no award was made, and referred to Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act so as to apply its provisions to the determination of quantum.
The date of filing the writ petition, 6 May 2005, was fixed as the date for determining the market value of the land, admeasuring 6,900 square metres. Quantum is then determined under the 2013 Act, and all statutory benefits under it are payable.
Who pays, and when
Because the petitioners were deprived of possession between 17 April 1989 and 5 May 2005, the respondents must also pay rental compensation for that period as per the State's policy. The Collector must begin that exercise forthwith and finish it within eight weeks, intimating the figure within a week, after which MTNL disburses it within two weeks.
Since MTNL has been enjoying the property, the financial burden of all the reliefs falls on it. MTNL must deposit the compensation with the Land Acquisition Officer within two weeks of intimation, and the officer must disburse it to the petitioners within one week of receiving it.
The Rs 5 lakh deposited in Court in 2006 is to be disbursed to the petitioners with accrued interest within two weeks, and adjusted against the compensation finally determined.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
What if land was taken but no award was ever made?
The Court treated it as an acquisition without an award and applied the 2013 Act to determine compensation.
From what date is market value calculated?
The Court fixed the date the writ petition was filed — 6 May 2005.
Claiming for land taken without an award
- Establish the date possession was actually taken, separately from any notification date.
- Ask the Court to fix the date for market value; it can do so under Article 226 in a case like this.
- Claim rental compensation for the period of deprivation as a distinct head, under the State's own policy.
- Identify who has enjoyed the property — the financial burden was put on the occupier, not the acquiring authority.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No. 3702 of 2005, decided 7 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in