Introduction:

In a significant legal battle spanning decades, the Supreme Court of India recently addressed a contentious issue involving the allocation of forest land by the Maharashtra state authorities. The case, known as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., highlights a dispute where the state allotted notified forest land as compensation to a private individual after illegally occupying his property. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan.

The applicant’s predecessors-in-title had purchased a 24-acre land in Pune in the 1950s. This land was subsequently occupied by the state government, leading to a prolonged legal battle. Despite winning litigation up to the Supreme Court, the applicant faced further challenges when the alternate land allotted by the state turned out to be part of a notified forest area. This has led to another round of litigation, prompting the Supreme Court to take a stern view of the state’s actions.

Arguments:

Applicant’s Arguments:

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, representing the applicant, emphasized the extensive legal struggle the applicant and his predecessors endured. He pointed out that despite winning multiple rounds of litigation, the applicant was yet to receive rightful possession of land due to the state’s actions. The state first occupied the applicant’s land, then offered alternate land that was notified as forest, making it impossible for the applicant to take possession.

Mehta highlighted the unfairness of the state’s offer to compensate the applicant with a meager sum of Rs. 14 lakhs, valuing the land at the rates of 1963. He argued that this offer was not only inadequate but also an insult to the applicant’s prolonged legal battle. The fact that the Defense Institute, to which the original land was given, claimed it was not a party to the dispute further complicated the matter.

State’s Arguments:

The state’s counsel faced tough questions from Justice Gavai, who underscored the constitutional right to property. The state attempted to justify its actions but struggled to present a coherent and fair proposal to compensate the applicant adequately. The state’s affidavit in 2015, offering Rs. 14 lakhs, was criticized for being grossly unfair and outdated.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court’s bench, led by Justices Gavai and Viswanathan, expressed deep dissatisfaction with the state’s handling of the matter. The court noted that the state had not provided a clear and satisfactory proposal for compensating the applicant, despite the matter being pending for years. The court emphasized that the state should have taken necessary precautions before allotting a piece of land that was notified as forest land.

The bench directed the state government to present a clear stand on whether it would offer another piece of equivalent land to the applicant or provide adequate monetary compensation. The court also mentioned the possibility of the state moving the central government to denotify the forest land.

The bench warned that if the state continued to avoid taking a clear stand, it might compel the Chief Secretary’s presence in court. The court adjourned the matter, awaiting the state’s response on how it intends to compensate the applicant.