Quick Summary: A land dispute in Bhiwandi has led to a lengthy arbitration process involving Rural Infrastructure Development Private Limited and the Land Acquisition Officer. The case, heard in the Bombay High Court, highlights a tangled web of procedural delays and challenges about which court can hear the case.
The case involves M/s Rural Infrastructure Development Private Limited and Shahapur Bhagar Food LLP, who are challenging the payment given for land taken in Village Dalkhan, Shahapur, Thane. The land was taken under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955. The petitioners were unhappy with the payment of Rs. 510 per square meter, totaling Rs. 2.91 Crores.
The arbitration process began in April 2021 when the petitioners sought more money. However, by December 2025, no decision had been made due to repeated changes in the appointed arbitrator. Initially, the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, was appointed, but the role shifted between Nashik and Konkan, causing significant delays.
"Four and a half years have gone by without the arbitration being in sight."
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar and Mr. Vivek Punjabi, argued that the time limit for arbitration had expired and sought a new arbitrator. The respondents, led by Ms. Irra Dube-Patil, argued that the High Court did not have the power to appoint an arbitrator, as this power belonged to the State Government.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan looked into the case, highlighting the lack of progress in arbitration. The judge emphasized the legal right to timely arbitration for landowners and noted that the law's intent for faster resolution was being frustrated.
"The legal promise to the stakeholders – both the land losers as well as the State stands evidently frustrated on the ground."
The court looked into which court had the authority to hear the case, determining that the arbitration was based in Navi Mumbai, where the Divisional Commissioner is headquartered. This meant the authority lay with the district court in Navi Mumbai, not the High Court.
The court decided that the authority of the Arbitral Tribunal had expired due to delays. The petitioners were advised to approach the appropriate court in Navi Mumbai to appoint a new arbitrator.
