The decision was issued through a Government Resolution by the Revenue and Forest Department. The compensation pertains to land bearing Survey No. 94/2A, measuring 4.55 hectares, which was acquired for the gaothan (village settlement) expansion scheme.

The case dates back to 2004, when the Sub-Divisional Officer in Pandharpur passed an award for the land acquisition. Subsequently, landowners, including Maganlal Premchand Vohra and others, approached the court under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhanced compensation.

In July 2017, the District Judge-1 at Malshiras ruled in favor of the landowners and granted increased compensation. Following this order, the Solapur District Collector requested the state government to release the required funds.

Acting on this request, the state government has now sanctioned a total of ₹2,80,76,138 for disbursement during the financial year 2026–27. The funds will be routed through the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, and disbursed to the eligible landowners after due verification.

The government has laid down strict conditions to ensure proper utilization of funds. Authorities have been directed to verify the final compensation amount before payment, ensure that funds are used only for the intended purpose, and maintain proper accounting records. Officials must also submit utilization certificates and expenditure reports to the government and the Accountant General.

The move is expected to bring long-pending relief to affected landowners and reflects the government’s effort to comply with judicial orders in land acquisition cases tied to rural development projects.

Also Read: Housing Society Wins Key Victory in Deemed Conveyance Dispute Against Developer

The post Maharashtra Approves ₹2.80 Crore Compensation for Landowners in Akluj Village Expansion Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

Petitioner Roshan Shrikant Tandel approached the court after discovering that while the government had issued Section 4 notification on 24 September 1986 and Section 6 declaration on 14 September 1987 for acquiring land for Navi Mumbai, his specific plot was never included in the compensation award declared on 31 August 1989. The award mentioned the land on page 1 but completely omitted it from the valuation and compensation calculations on page 4. Even the possession receipt (kabjepavti) dated 9 July 1990 did not cover this plot. No compensation was ever paid, and possession was never legally taken.

The State and CIDCO admitted these facts in their reply affidavits. Yet they tried to wriggle out by claiming “computational error,” delay and laches, and offered only old 1894 Act compensation plus some interest and developed plots.

Justice Manish Pitale, writing for the Division Bench (along with Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat), tore apart the respondents’ defence. The court held that because no award was passed for this specific land within two years of the Section 6 declaration, the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed by operation of law under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as far back as 13 September 1989.

The judges rejected CIDCO’s “computational error” argument, noting that unlike previous cases cited by the corporation, here there was zero computation, zero payment, and zero legal possession. The court also dismissed the delay plea, observing that the petitioner was a minor at the time, his mother was an illiterate widow, and the State itself had conceded the factual position.

Relying heavily on Article 300-A of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024), the High Court held that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law. CIDCO’s subsequent demarcation and development of the plot cannot override the petitioner’s constitutional right.

In a decisive order, the court declared that the 1986-87 acquisition for this plot has lapsed. Instead of ordering physical return of the already-developed land (which would cause practical complications), the Bench directed CIDCO and the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and complete the process — including determination and payment of compensation — within one year (by 5 May 2027).

This judgment is a massive victory for landowners and sends a clear message: the State and its agencies cannot play fast and loose with private property rights for decades and then hide behind technicalities.

Also Read: CIDCO Homes to Become 10% Cheaper

The post CIDCO Took 280 sq.m Land for Navi Mumbai but “Forgot” Compensation — HC Orders Massive 2013 Act Payout appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Division Bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, in its judgment dated 17 April 2026 in State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Neguib Yahyabhiy Kachwalla (Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:18107-DB), dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld a massive enhancement of compensation from ₹14.5 per sq.m. (awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer) to ₹500 per sq.m. for 82,200 sq.m. of land at Village Kusgaon, Taluka Maval, Pune.

The land was acquired in 1996 for soil, murum, and stone quarries for the Mumbai-Pune Expressway. The SLAO had relied almost exclusively on the prevailing Ready Reckoner rate to fix a paltry total compensation of ₹11.93 lakh. The Reference Court enhanced it to ₹3.99 crore (plus solatium and other benefits), a decision the High Court found fully justified.

“The entire basis of arriving at the compensation by the SLAO… is legally flawed,” the court observed, citing Supreme Court precedents such as K.S. Shivadevamma and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Nemichand Damodardas. The judges noted that Ready Reckoner rates are uniform guideline values meant for stamp duty purposes and do not reflect the actual market value, location advantages, development potential, or comparable sale instances required under Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The court gave due weight to a registered government valuer’s report that assessed the land at ₹950 per sq.m. (after deductions), highlighting its proximity to Lonavala (2–3 km), non-agricultural and resort/farmhouse potential, and strategic hilltop location. After applying reasonable deductions for development charges, the Reference Court arrived at ₹500 per sq.m., which the High Court described as a fair and balanced “guesstimation” grounded in evidence rather than speculation.

The bench emphasised that determining just compensation is not an exact science but requires holistic consideration of factors like proximity to developed areas, future potentiality, and genuine market transactions. Blind reliance on Ready Reckoner rates, the court said, fails to deliver the “fair and just” compensation mandated by law.

This judgment comes at a time when Maharashtra has kept Ready Reckoner rates unchanged for 2026–27 citing economic factors, and serves as a timely reminder to acquiring authorities across the state that undervaluing land based solely on stamp-duty rates can lead to prolonged litigation and significantly higher payouts.

Landowners and legal experts have welcomed the ruling, calling it a strong reaffirmation of property rights against mechanical government valuations.

Also Read: Homebuyers Are Vulnerable, Developers Not on Equal Footing: Bombay High Court

The post Ready Reckoner Rates Cannot Be Sole Basis for Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court appeared first on Square Feat India.