Quick Summary: On December 24, 2025, the Bombay High Court canceled a controversial rule from the Maharashtra government related to land acquisition payments. The court found it illegal and against existing laws, providing relief to many landowners affected by the Ring Road Project in Pune.
On January 24, 2023, Maharashtra's Revenue and Forest Department issued a rule that left out certain land sale data when figuring out payments for land acquisition. This exclusion applied to sales made one year before the announcement of the acquisition. The rule was based on a decision from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
People who challenged the rule, including Santosh Ramchandra Balkawade, argued that it was unfair and went against the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). They said that leaving out sales data from the year before the announcement was random and lowered the payments unfairly.
The rule had a big impact on landowners in Pune, where the Ring Road Project was happening. Many families in villages like Ambegaon, Marnewadi, and Urwade received lower payment offers because of the rule.
The court, led by Judges G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, looked at what the lawmakers intended with the 2013 Act. They stressed that payments should reflect the market value at the time of the acquisition announcement, not based on selective exclusions.
"The legislative intent is to ensure that landowners receive fair compensation reflective of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition," the court noted.
On December 24, 2025, the court declared the rule illegal and ordered that compensation be recalculated strictly according to the 2013 Act. They pointed out that leaving out sales data from the year before the announcement was against the law.
The verdict requires that any payments calculated using the now-invalid rule must be recalculated. This decision is a win for affected landowners, ensuring they receive fair payments based on true market values.
The court clarified that ongoing legal challenges about compensation can now consider this verdict. However, agreements reached by mutual consent remain unchanged.
This judgment highlights the importance of fair payments in land acquisition, reinforcing the protective measures of the 2013 Act.
