Government authorities cannot indefinitely withhold land-acquisition compensation after taking possession without valid legal justification.

The petitioners’ lands in South West Garo Hills, Meghalaya, were acquired in 2017–2018 for construction of the Indo-Bangladesh Border Fencing under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

The Collector prepared draft awards dated 4 September 2018 and 9 October 2018, which were approved by the Joint Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department.

Despite completion of the statutory formalities and preparation of the draft awards, compensation was not paid to the affected landowners.

The State and Union authorities attributed the delay to confusion and requests for clarification regarding the amounts reflected in the draft awards.

Several representations and court orders seeking progress in payment did not result in disbursement, leading the petitioners to seek a direction for payment of compensation.

Whether the respondents were legally obligated to disburse compensation for the petitioners’ acquired lands after completion and approval of the draft awards under the 2013 Act.

Whether administrative confusion between the State and Union authorities regarding the draft awards could justify the prolonged non-payment of compensation.

Whether the Court should direct the respondents to resolve the outstanding issues and pay compensation within a specified time.

The Court applied the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, under which land acquired by the State must be followed by lawful determination and payment of compensation after completion of the prescribed acquisition process.

It further applied the general public-law principle that governmental authorities cannot retain possession of acquired land while indefinitely withholding compensation on account of administrative delay or inter-departmental confusion; prolonged failure to pay compensation, absent a valid legal justification, may constitute an abuse of governmental power.

No specific statutory section or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the acquisition proceedings had been undertaken under the 2013 Act and that the draft awards had been prepared in 2018 and approved by the competent State authority.

Consequently, the respondents’ obligation to proceed with payment could not be defeated by unresolved correspondence or uncertainty between the Union and State authorities concerning the award amounts.

The Court held that the explanations offered did not absolve the authorities of their responsibility to ensure timely payment, particularly as possession had been taken and the writ petition had remained pending since 2019.

The continuing delay, despite repeated orders intended to facilitate payment, warranted a mandatory time-bound direction.

The petitioners were therefore granted time-bound administrative relief, although the Court did not itself determine or modify the quantum of compensation.