Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Bombay high court clears higher payout for farm land acquisition -Swati Deshpande

Bombay high court clears higher payout for farm land acquisition -Swati Deshpande

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Mar 24, 2015   modified Modified on Mar 24, 2015
-The Times of India

MUMBAI: In a landmark judgment, the Bombay high court has paved the way for the state to pay higher compensation to farmers whose land it acquires for public projects. The court held that financial constraints or project cost escalations cannot be a reason to shortchange farmers and set aside a government decision to fix a multiplier factor of 1.1 on market rates even though the law says it could be double the rate.

The state said the rise in the factor from 1 to 1.1 alone, last year, potentially meant a cost escalation of Rs 5,700 crore for rural land acquisition since last January, a figure which the HC said was incorrect and "beyond comprehension", but one which cannot justify lower compensation to farmers.

The Aurangabad bench of the HC, comprising Justices B P Dharmadhikari and A M Badar, delivered the judgment on a plea made by a 38-year-old farmer, Panjabrao Borade, from Patoda, a remote village in district Jalna. The closest town is 30km away and the district headquarters 75km away.

The farmer challenged the compensation rule by the state which was acquiring his land for a water storage tank. The state irrigation department proposed to acquire 200 hectares from 204 farmers in the village for the project.

After hearing the farmer's advocate Pradnya Talekar and senior counsel Ram Apte for the state, the HC was convinced that the state had acted "without any application of mind" and that its decision was "vitiated by extraneous considerations of inadequacy of funds and unviable increase in budgetary costs".

The farmer had challenged the notifications issued last March and August by the deputy secretary, revenue and forest department, for being against the provisions of "the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013", a Central law.

Talekar said in May 2011, under the Land Acquisitions act of 1894, Borade's 2-hectare plot was notified for acquisition. But before the state could fix its compensation under the archaic act, the new contemporary and salutary 2013 law came into force. The new Act requires the collector to determine the market value of the land, based on certain prescribed criteria. The value is to then be multiplied by a factor to decide the compensation amount. The Act said the factors could range from 1 to 2.

Last March the state fixed the factor as 1, but after the petition was filed, increased it to 1, 1.05 and 1.1 depending on the distance of such land from an urban area. For villages 25km away from municipal areas, the factor was 1.10 while it was 1 for villages up to 10 km. Borade challenged the modified factors too as being wilfully low to frustrate and defeat the very purpose of the law on fair compensation.

The compensation cannot be so meagre, said Talekar. Even states like Rajasthan, UP, Punjab and others have provided for factors ranging from 1.5 to 4.5, she said.

Apte said the courts are barred from judicial review in policy matters unless constitutional or statutory provisions are violated. Here, that is not the case, he said. But Talekar said the state had acted against the legislative intent and against farmers' interest.

The state was in no mood to back down. It filed not one, but three affidavits to oppose the petition. Apte said the 2013 Act gives the state discretion to decide on the multiplier factor. The state said if the factor is increased for rural areas beyond 1, "budgetary costs of projects would increase making it incapable for the state to provide much need infrastructure in rural areas." Apte said, "Budgetary costs and investment in rural areas would get discouraged, if the factor goes beyond 1.1." The factor is "logical and non-discretionary" and its fixation is a "legislative exercise", not subordinate as suggested by the farmer's lawyer.

The state said there are 1,520 villages at a distance of up to 10km from the nearest municipal area and 2,593 villages between 10 and 25km, with 20,600 villages beyond 25km. Hence if 1.1 factor is applied, valuation of land acquisition would soar from Rs 1,608 crore to Rs 7,310 crores.

But the HC observed that even if multiplied by 2, the compensation would be less than the figure arrived at by the state. The judges said, "Notifications are delegated legislations which cannot override statutory mandate."

The court said that there are no guidelines that require the state to limit the factor below 2 and hence the state's decision lacked reasonableness, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

The state must apply its mind and evolve a common formula with the help of experts for the state and could perhaps use a belting method based on distance so that the compensation amount is reasonable, which it clearly hasn't done, the HC said.

The court however, stayed it order by two months on the state's request as it intends to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.


The Times of India, 24 March, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bombay-high-court-clears-higher-payout-for-farm-land-acquisition/articleshow/46668661.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close