Pradyumna Mukund Kokil (Appellant) v. Nashik Municipal Corporation & Ors. (Respondents)

Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18305 of 2023

CJI, B. R. GAVAI and AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J

The appeal is filed with respect to a dispute regarding land at Survey No. 8/1, Village Deolali, District Nashik, measuring 1 hectare and 38 acres (13,800 sq. meters). The property initially belonged to the predecessor of the appellant (“Original Owner”). On 03.05.1972, the Nashik Road-Deolali Municipal Council (now Nashik Municipal Corporation) enacted Resolution No. 14 dated 03.05.1972, reserving the aforesaid land for a high school, playground, and development plan roads as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”).

Later, on 22.06.1972, the Municipal Council acquired 37 acres (3,700 sq. meters) of land in the public interest without formally initiating acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, a notification under Section 126(2) MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 02.03.1978, acquiring just 1 hectare and 1 Are (10,100 sq. meters), leaving 3,700 sq. meters unacquired. Notwithstanding this, the Corporation went on occupying and utilizing the unacquired land for road purposes without title.

After the award for the purchased part had been transferred, no action was taken to purchase the balance of 3,700 sq. meters. The Original Owner, alleging continued ownership of the unpurchased portion, made an application dated 11.08.1995 under Section 127 MRTP Act to get permission to develop the land, alleging that the reservation had fallen vacant owing to inaction by the planning authority.

When the Corporation didn’t act, the Original Owner presented a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court. On 12.11.1998, the High Court accepted the argument and ruled that the reservation on the land had lapsed and ordered that any future development proposals be considered without objection based on the reservation.

After the ruling of the High Court, the Original Owner again applied for a sanction to build on the 37-acre land. But by an order dated 27.12.1999, the Corporation refused the application, claiming that the land was in the possession and ownership of the Corporation, as it was utilized for road construction.

The Original Owner filed an appeal under Section 47 MRTP Act on 09.02.2002, but the appeal was rejected by the State Government on 05.03.2007, citing the fact that possession had already been taken by the Corporation and the land had been used for a public road under the development plan. The Appellate Authority, however, ordered the Corporation to compensate the owner of the land either in money or in the form of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), recognizing continued public use of the land without acquisition.

The pivotal issues pending before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the Nashik Municipal Corporation could legally hold on to possession of the 37 acres of land without acquisition.
2. Whether the Original Owner (now the Appellant) was entitled to compensation or restoration of possession.
3. The implication of the earlier order of the High Court declaring the reservation lapsed under Section 127 MRTP Act.

The Court followed the chain of events, establishing that though the reservation had expired and acquisition had never been affected over the 37 acres, the Corporation still possessed and utilized the land without title. Taking possession without acquisition was tantamount to unauthorized deprivation of private property, denying the landowner his constitutional right under Article 300A (property right).

The Court also noted that the Appellate Authority itself had identified the Corporation’s liability to compensate the landowner, albeit the order remained unimplemented. The Supreme Court therefore underlined that the Corporation cannot derive benefit from its own illegality by perpetually holding on to land without due process or compensation.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The Corporation’s possession of the unacquired 37 acres lacked legal sanction.
• Expiration of the reservation under Section 127 MRTP Act revived the rights of the owner over the property.
• Compensation in terms of monetary compensation or by way of grant of TDR is payable to the landowner (appellant), as already ordered by the Appellate Authority.

The Court thus upheld the right of the appellant to receive compensation and ordered the Nashik Municipal Corporation to adhere to the requirement within a stipulated time period so that the procedural safeguards of the public authorities are respected while implementing schemes of urban development.

Public authorities may not take up or use private property for public objectives without formal acquisition and compensation. To do so contravenes Article 300A and subverts the constitutional protection against deprivation of property except by authority of law.