In the recent case of Rajeev Kumar Damodarprasad Bhadani and Ors v The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) and Ors, the Bombay High Court ordered MSEDCL to acquire the land of the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and to pay compensation within three months. The land had been unlawfully taken over some 37 years before the case was brought.
The petitioners claimed as successors in title of a landowner whose property had been occupied by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) since 1984, as proved by a survey in 2019. The MSEB, predecessor of the MSEDCL, had applied to the state government to acquire the plot through the procedure under sections 128 and 129 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. However, no proceedings for the acquisition of the land had been started.
Possession of the land was subsequently transferred to the MSEDCL, which had erected an electricity substation on the plot, either in 1986 or 1993. The case for the petitioners was that the MSEDCL had at all times been in unlawful possession of the land. The petitioners contended that the proper redress was for the land acquisition procedure under present law, that is the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to be followed. The petitioners should be awarded compensation.
The respondents opposed the petition on the ground of laches, or delay. The petition had been filed after nearly 40 years from the date of possession by the MSEB and 28 years since the latest date of the construction of the substation. It was also contended that the Electricity Act, 2003, and regulations made under it, took precedence over the Land Acquisition Act.
The Electricity Act provided for the introduction of an electricity code – in this case the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021, issued under section 50 of the Electricity Act. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the regulations deal with all rights and obligations connected with the supply of electricity. Even if the petitioners were entitled to compensation, the respondents argued that by virtue of regulation 6.5 of the 2021 regulations, the most the petitioners could be granted was a lease rental of INR1 (1.2 US cents) each year.
On the issue of a delay, the high court held that it was trite law that strict limitation periods did not apply to constitutional rights, particularly those affected by land acquisition. The court had to consider fairness. The bench drew support from the Supreme Court case of Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr v The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. Dismissing the petition solely because of a delay would be unjust; adjudicating the petition on its merits would not disadvantage the MSEDCL and the state.
The respondents’ attempt to distinguish Sukh Dutt Ratra and other authorities as applying to rural land but not to urban acquisition was quickly dismissed. The court rejected the argument that electricity law supersedes land acquisition laws as “an extraordinary attempt at ingenuity”. Section 50 of the Electricity Act dealt with the relationship between the electricity distribution licensee and the consumer. The code was to be a consumer charter and had nothing to do with land acquisition and the erection of a substation and other buildings.
There was no dispute over the boundaries of the land or its possession history; the state had not engaged a specific process for land acquisition; the respondents were aware of their obligation, but the authorities had failed to carry out their duties. The petitioners were entitled to compensation for the land acquired by the MSEDCL. In analysing Sukh Dutt Ratra, the court made clear it supported the finding of the Supreme Court that there can be no limitation to doing justice if the right to property has been denied without due process of the law.
The dispute digest is compiled by Numen Law Offices, a multidisciplinary law firm based in New Delhi & Mumbai. The authors can be contacted at support@numenlaw.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
