Introduction:
The case of IN RE: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, involves a protracted legal battle over a 24-acre land in Pune, originally purchased by the predecessors-in-interest of the current applicant in the 1950s. The land was illegally occupied by the Maharashtra state government, which subsequently allotted a portion of notified forest land to the applicant as compensation. This case reached a critical juncture when the Supreme Court reprimanded the Maharashtra government for failing to file an affidavit detailing compensation measures.
Arguments:
Applicant’s Arguments:
The applicant argued that his predecessors legally acquired the 24-acre land in Pune, which was later occupied by the state government. This illegal occupation led to a legal battle that the applicant won up to the Supreme Court level. However, the state then claimed the land had been allocated to a Defense Institute, which refused to vacate, citing non-involvement in the dispute. Consequently, the applicant petitioned the Bombay High Court for alternate land, which was eventually granted in 2004. However, this land was part of a notified forest area, making it unusable. The applicant sought either equivalent land or adequate compensation, as well as clarification on whether the state would seek denotification of the forest land.
State Government’s Arguments:
The Maharashtra state government contended that they had allotted alternative land to the applicant. The state counsel argued that the government was not given sufficient time to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to file the affidavit, as the order was only uploaded on July 30. They claimed that this short timeframe hindered their ability to provide the required information.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court, with a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, and KV Viswanathan, expressed strong disapproval of the Maharashtra government’s failure to comply with its orders. The court emphasized that the state must not take judicial orders lightly and should prioritize compensating the loss of land over allocating funds for schemes like Ladli Behna. Justice Gavai highlighted the impropriety of the state’s casual approach to court orders, particularly when the applicant had already endured significant delays and injustices.
The court rejected the state’s excuse regarding the insufficient time to act on the order, noting that the order was dictated in the presence of all parties. The Supreme Court insisted on the state’s immediate compliance, mandating the filing of an affidavit detailing:
- Whether another piece of equivalent land will be offered to the petitioner/applicant.
- Whether adequate compensation will be paid to the petitioner/applicant.
- Whether the state government plans to move the central government for the denotification of the allocated forest land.
The court warned that failure to submit this affidavit by the next hearing date would necessitate the personal presence of the chief secretary in court.