Supreme Court Criticizes Maharashtra Authorities for Failing to Compensate Villagers After Land Acquisition

On Monday, the Supreme Court took a strong stand against the Maharashtra government for failing to compensate villagers after acquiring their land nearly two decades ago.

Calling it a “classic case” of state authorities neglecting their responsibilities, the apex court warned that if the compensation were not disbursed by January 31, 2025, it would initiate contempt proceedings against the officials involved.

The case pertains to land acquired in 2005 from villagers in Jambhalkhori Borphadi, a village in the Beed district of Maharashtra, for constructing a water tank under the Employment Guarantee Scheme.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh expressed its disappointment with the state’s actions, stating, “This is a textbook example of how authorities in Maharashtra have denied rightful compensation to individuals whose land was compulsorily acquired.”

The bench pointed out that despite court orders mandating the payment of ₹1.49 crore as compensation, the funds had not been released to the villagers.

The justices highlighted that the failure to comply with these orders had persisted even though the compensation directive had attained finality long ago.

The Supreme Court emphasized its lenient approach by choosing not to immediately issue notices to the responsible officials or entertain a plea filed by the Zila Parishad of Beed district, which sought to avoid liability.

Instead, the court decided to focus on ensuring the villagers received justice by issuing a set of clear directives. The apex court instructed the chief secretary of Maharashtra, along with the principal secretary (finance) and principal secretary (panchayat and rural development), to address the matter within one week.

These officials were directed to issue the necessary sanctions for releasing the compensation amount, including interest accrued till date, as well as exemplary costs that may be determined by the reference court.

To ensure compliance, the Supreme Court ordered that payments to the affected villagers and other similarly placed individuals be completed by January 31, 2025.

Additionally, compliance reports were to be filed with the High Court to confirm that the compensation process had been carried out. The bench appointed the Beed district collector as the nodal officer responsible for ensuring that the payments reached the villagers without further delay.

The court also instructed the chief secretary to seek an explanation from the collector about the delay and determine the specific department responsible for the lapse. Further, appropriate action was to be taken against the erring officials once liability was established.

The bench made it clear that if the directives were not followed by the stipulated deadline, the registrar general of the Bombay High Court would proceed to register suo motu contempt proceedings against all officers concerned.

The High Court would then be empowered to take the matter forward and impose penalties for contempt of court. The court further ordered that the ₹1 lakh cost imposed by the High Court in an earlier judgment be recovered personally from the salaries of the officials found guilty of negligence.

The Supreme Court also referred to the observations made by the Bombay High Court in its November 18, 2024, order.

In that judgment, the High Court had noted that instead of summoning the collector and awarding a befitting sentence for contempt, it had opted to make critical observations regarding the officer’s conduct.

The High Court had pointed out that while the state government had floated various schemes for financial assistance, including “Ladki Bahin,” it had failed to compensate the villagers who had lost their land back in 2005. It remarked that this failure to pay compensation, despite clear court orders, had persisted for 19 years.

The case had been brought before the courts after the aggrieved villagers moved for execution of the compensation award.

When the civil judge in charge of the matter attached the bank account of the Zila Parishad as a coercive recovery measure, the parishad filed an appeal with the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court.

The parishad argued that the responsibility to pay compensation lay with the Beed collector and the state government, not with the parishad itself.

However, the High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the collector or Zila Parishad, to be borne jointly or severally, for their failure to pay the compensation amount.

The Supreme Court’s directives mark a critical intervention in a case that has dragged on for nearly two decades, highlighting the plight of the affected villagers and the state’s lack of accountability in addressing their grievances.

The court’s firm stance serves as a reminder to public officials of their obligation to uphold the law and respect the rights of citizens.