Legal Struggles Over Land Acquisition: The Shantiniketan Case.


15 October 2024 Land Acquistion >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent judgment in the matter of Sudhir Madhavrao Kudale Since deceased through LRs & Another v/s Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India & Others, the High Court addressed a contentious case involving the alleged unlawful acquisition and demolition of a building known as Shantiniketan, situated in Pune. This case highlights the complexities of land acquisition processes and the legal rights of landowners. The petition was filed by the landowners of Shantiniketan, a four-story building that has stood since the early 1970s. The petitioners claimed that their property was acquired and demolished by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) during the widening of National Highway No. 4, without following proper legal procedures and without compensating them. They argued that this action rendered them homeless, as they had lost their residence and source of livelihood.

The legal proceedings began when the NHAI issued a notice for land acquisition in 2003, inviting objections from landowners. Following objections from the petitioners, it was decided to limit the acquisition width. However, a notice in 2015 indicated that further acquisition efforts were underway, leading to the eventual demolition of Shantiniketan in 2016. The petitioners contended that the demolition was illegal and that they were owed compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2015.

 
 

Despite their claims, the NHAI responded that the property had been lawfully acquired and that any structures erected after the original acquisition were unauthorized encroachments. This assertion was supported by documentation showing that the building was not officially recognized in the acquisition records.

The court ultimately found that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claims. Key factors in the decision included the lack of evidence proving the existence of Shantiniketan as an acquired property and the petitioners' previous failure to pursue a civil suit related to the matter. The dismissal of this civil suit for default further weakened their position, as it denied them an opportunity to present their case in a trial setting.

In light of the evidence presented, the court determined that it would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to intervene in the matter. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were left without recourse for compensation or restoration of their property.

This case serves as a reminder of the legal intricacies surrounding land acquisition and the challenges faced by landowners in asserting their rights. It underscores the importance of timely legal action and the necessity for proper documentation in property disputes. As urban development continues to encroach upon private properties, understanding these legal frameworks becomes increasingly vital for landowners navigating similar challenges. 

  National Highways Act, 1956    RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013