Landowners are entitled to rental compensation from the date of advance possession until final award payment.

The petitioner owned lands in Village Wakad, Pune, which were reserved for an octroi post in the draft development plans of 1997 and 2000

The respondent-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) took possession of the land in August 2003, though a formal possession receipt (taba pavati) was executed only on February 24, 2006

Formal land acquisition proceedings were delayed; a Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) was issued in 2009

Following a previous High Court order in WP 2970/2013, an award was finally passed on January 22, 2015

The PCMC issued an order on October 10, 2016, granting rental compensation of only Rs. 3,22,308/- for the period between August 2003 and February 2006

The petitioner challenged this order, seeking rental compensation until the final payment of the award as per State policy

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to rental compensation from the date of taking possession (August 2003) until the final payment of compensation under the award

2. Whether the Government Resolutions (GRs) providing for rental compensation are restricted to irrigation projects or apply to acquisitions for other public purposes like octroi posts

3. Whether the GR dated April 17, 2003, which cancelled previous rental compensation policies, disentitles the petitioner to relief

The court applied the policy of the State of Maharashtra manifested in Government Resolutions dated December 1, 1972, April 2, 1979, and December 26, 2003

It relied on State of Maharashtra v. Maimuma Banu (2003) 7 SCC 448, which established that while rental compensation is not a statutory right under the LA Act, it is payable based on executive orders to compensate owners deprived of land use prior to formal acquisition

The court further applied the principle from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304, holding that discriminating between landowners based on the purpose of acquisition (e.g., irrigation vs. municipal) violates Article 14 of the Constitution

It also followed Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 3 Mh.L.J. 413, which clarified that even after the 2003 policy shifts, rental compensation remains payable based on the price of "open land"

The court found that PCMC's own order admitted taking possession in August 2003, negating their argument that the period should be restricted

It rejected the respondents' contention that rental compensation only applies to irrigation projects, reasoning that the core issue is the deprivation of the owner's enjoyment of land, regardless of the ultimate public use

Although the GR dated April 17, 2003, initially cancelled the 1972 and 1979 schemes, the court interpreted the subsequent GR of December 26, 2003, as a continuation of the entitlement, albeit with a modified calculation basis—8% p.a. on the value of "open land" rather than the total award value

The court distinguished the precedent in Ashok v. Masu Bansode, noting that the present case was governed by the 1894 Act and State policy, whereas Ashok dealt with the 2013 Act where additional statutory compensation for private negotiation is already provided

It held that the petitioner is entitled to rental compensation from August 2003 until the date the compensation under the 2015 award was actually paid

The court directed PCMC to calculate this amount at the rate of 8% p.a. on the price/value of "open land" as per the GR dated December 26, 2003

Additionally, the court awarded interest at 6% p.a. on the delayed rental compensation

The respondents were ordered to complete the determination and payment within four months, adjusting for amounts already paid