New Delhi,Sept, 16
Holding that the doctrine of laches does not apply to cases where compensation is sought for land surrendered for public amenities, the Supreme Court has said that the State is duty-bound to grant compensation even if no formal request is made.
The doctrine of laches is a legal principle used by courts to deny relief to anyone for an unreasonable delay in asserting his/her legal claim or right.
“When relief in the nature of compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR (Floor Space Index/Transferable Development Rights), the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made,” a Bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna said in its September 13 verdict.
The top court directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to complete the process of granting additional FSI/TDR in three months.
“In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution,” said the Bench which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh.
Article 300-A mandates that, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”. Emphasizing the need for a fair procedure for acquisition of private property, the Supreme Court had May 16, 2024 said mere presence of a law authorising the State instrumentalities to acquire land or any other private property was not sufficient in the absence of procedural safeguards.
The petitioners had surrendered portions of their land reserved for public purposes such as roads to the MCGM after constructing amenities like roads on these lands at their own cost. They received additional TDR of 25% of the constructed area as compensation for constructing the amenities at own cost.
Following the Supreme Court’s 2009 verdict Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra that said landowners who constructed amenities like roads on surrendered plots were entitled to additional FSI or TDR of 100% of the developed area, the petitioners demanded additional TDR of 100% of the constructed area for the amenities. The litigation started after MCGM rejected their claim.
The Bench allowed appeals by landowners whose petitions before the Bombay High Court for additional compensation towards land surrendered for developing amenities were dismissed due to delay and laches. It said not doing so would violate the mandate of Article 300 of the Constitution.
