Samruddhi Expressway: HC quashes Maharashtra govt decision of not considering RR rate for land acquisition compensation

The petitioners had challenged the decision claiming that the state cannot determine the quantum of compensation for projects by applying different policies.

A RR is a standard rate fixed by the state government for property transactions. As per the corrigendum, the project-affected people, whose land was acquired by the government, were not entitled to compensation based on the RR rate.

However, the court had struck down the same. It had held that the impugned corrigendum “deviated from the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and rules framed in 2014 governing the principle for determination of compensation of the amount”.

“Such executive instructions contrary to the provision of the statute (and) rules cannot be sustained. The same would be beyond the purview of the powers conferred on an executive under Article 162 of the Constitution,” the HC added.

Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Vinay G Joshi passed the verdict while hearing a clutch of petitions that assailed the Maharashtra government decision.

As per the government resolution dated August 13, 2018, the state had decided to consider the RR rate to determine the market value of the land to be acquired for all projects. However, through the corrigendum issued in September 2018, exception was made for the Nagpur-Mumbai expressway project.

The HC held that while the circular of August 13, 2018 was as per law, the corrigendum did not comply with the same.

Advocate Nikhil Mengade, representing the petitioners, said that the authorities cannot differentiate between projects while determining compensation. The decision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and not in consonance with the 2013 Act, the HC was told.

However, Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said that guidelines have been provided for determination of RR rates under the Indian Stamps Act and the 2013 Act.

He added that 83 per cent of the land has been acquired via “private negotiation” and compensation paid. To this, the HC said, “Only because 83 per cent of property for the project has been acquired, it would be egregious not to apply the provisions of the statute for determination of compensation. If by private negotiation land has been acquired, the compensation paid cannot be the criteria to determine the market value for claimants who do not agree for private negotiation. The compensation shall have to be computed in accordance with the provisions and statute and rule of law.”