The Supreme Court of India criticized a lawyer representing the Maharashtra government in a land compensation case for submitting an affidavit that was deemed “contemptuous” by a senior IAS officer. The court stated that the lawyer should not have permitted the filing of such an affidavit. In response, the lawyer promptly apologized and notified the court that the state was withdrawing the affidavit. Despite this, the court remained displeased and directed the IAS officer to appear in person. The Supreme Court also reminded the lawyer that they should not simply act as a messenger for their client but must fulfill their responsibilities as an officer of the court.
The case concerns land that the state of Maharashtra illegally occupied over sixty years ago. The Supreme Court is now exploring ways to ensure the rightful landowner receives fair compensation. The court has instructed the Maharashtra government to determine the current market value of the land near Pune. Although the state had initially agreed to a compensation of Rs. 37 crore, the court has demanded an updated valuation.
In response to the court’s inquiry, the IAS officer submitted a statement indicating that neither the landowner nor the court would accept the Pune Collector’s most recent valuation. He emphasized that it is the state’s responsibility to determine appropriate compensation in accordance with legal provisions. The latest assessment placed the compensation at Rs. 48.6 crore.
The Maharashtra government had suggested providing alternative land within the Pune municipal area instead of monetary compensation, but the landowner declined this offer. The court then requested the landowner’s counsel, Dhruv Mehta, to consult with his client about whether they preferred monetary compensation or a land exchange. The court also instructed that both parties should jointly inspect the proposed land.
The Supreme Court observed that the state had failed to calculate the compensation based on the current market rate, accusing it of using delaying tactics. The court commented, “It is clear that the state has not upheld the assurances made by its counsel to the court. The state has once again expressed its willingness to offer compensation at the 1989 rate, along with interest on that amount. If the state had a legitimate reason for requesting additional time, it should have used it to conduct a fair assessment of the compensation. It seems that the state is simply attempting to prolong the case.”