The Supreme Court of India reprimanded a lawyer representing the Maharashtra government in a land compensation case for submitting an affidavit deemed “contemptuous” by a senior IAS officer. The court emphasized that the lawyer should not have permitted the filing of such an affidavit. In response, the lawyer promptly apologized and informed the court that the state was withdrawing the affidavit. Despite this, the court’s displeasure remained, resulting in an order for 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 uphold 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 working to ensure that the rightful landowner receives fair compensation. The court has instructed the Maharashtra government to evaluate the current market value of the land near Pune. Although the state initially agreed to a compensation amount 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 duty to determine appropriate compensation based on legal standards, with the latest assessment valuing 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 instructed the landowner’s counsel, Dhruv Mehta, to discuss with his client whether they preferred monetary compensation or a land exchange. Additionally, the court directed both parties to jointly inspect the proposed land.
The Supreme Court observed that the state had failed to calculate the compensation based on the current market rate and accused it of using delaying tactics. The court stated, “It is clear that the state has not honored the assurances made by its counsel to the court. The state has once more offered compensation at the 1989 rate, plus interest on that amount. If the state had a legitimate reason for requesting more time, it should have used it to provide a fair assessment of the compensation. It seems the state is simply trying to prolong the case.”
