You have enough money for the Ladli behna scheme, all the money on freebies, you should take a little bit for compensating the loss of land: SC slams Maharashtra Government

On August 07, 2024 (Wednesday), the Supreme Court (SC) bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice KV Viswanathan pulled up the Maharashtra government for not filing an affidavit on the compensation given in a case where the State illegally occupied the property of a person. The bench slammed the Government stating that the state has enough money for freebies but does not have the money to compensate for properties acquired by the government. Justice Gavai remarked, “Do not take the Court for granted. You cannot treat every order of the Court in a casual manner. You have enough of money for Ladli behna (scheme). I read today's newspaper…all the money on freebies, you should take little bit for compensating the loss of land.” 

The SC bench was hearing an application filed by a litigant claiming that in the 1950s his predecessors-in-interest purchased a 24-acre land in Pune. The state government instituted a suit after occupying the land and won all the way to the top court. After a while, the decree was sought to be executed but the state said that the land had been given to the Defense Institute. On the contrary, the Defense Institute claimed that it was not a party to the dispute and; therefore, could not be evicted. Further, the litigant moved to the Bombay High Court (HC) seeking allotment of an alternate land. The HC criticized the state for not allotting the land for 10 years. In 2004, an alternate land was allotted to the applicant. After this, the Central Empowered Committee informed the applicant that the land allotted to him was part of a notified forest area. 

The issue came to light while the SC bench was hearing the TN Godavarman case relating to an omnibus forest protection matter. The top court rebuked the state for allotting land that was a part of the notified forest area. The SC directed the State to file an affidavit including the following points:

• “As to whether another piece of equivalent land will be offered to the petitioner(s)/applicant(s); or
• As to whether adequate compensation would be paid to the petitioner(s)/applicant(s);
• As to whether the State Government proposes to move the Central Government for denotification of the said land as forest land.”

While hearing the matter on August 07, the SC bench was notified that the affidavit was not filed; therefore, the bench clarified that if the affidavit is not filed before or after the next hearing then the chief secretary will have to be present within the court premises.