Right to property under Article 300A includes fair compensation and a prompt acquisition process. State's failure to adhere to statutory timelines in land acquisition is unconstitutional. Compensation must be determined per market value, and undue delay violates fundamental principles of justice.

Court held that the State and Corporation failed in their duty to complete acquisition proceedings efficiently. Directed payment of ₹62,17,280/- as an interim compensation. Ordered the Corporation to submit a complete proposal for acquisition within three months and the Collector to finalize the process within one year.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950—Article 300A—Right to property as a constitutional and human right.
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013—Procedure for land acquisition and payment of compensation.
• Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966—Section 26—Development plan and reservation of land.

Subjects:

Land Acquisition—Fair Compensation—Right to Property—Delay in Payment—State’s Duty—Public Purpose—Expeditious Process—Restitution—Municipal Corporation

Nature of the Litigation:

• Writ Petition filed seeking directions for completion of land acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation.

Who Approached the Court and for What Remedy:

• Petitioners, claiming to be interested persons in the acquired land, sought a direction for the State and Municipal Corporation to finalize acquisition and pay just compensation.

Reason for Filing the Case:

• Despite the land being taken in 2009, the Petitioners had not received fair compensation, prompting legal action.

What Had Already Been Decided:

• The Corporation admitted possession of the land and proposed either a negotiated settlement or statutory acquisition under the 2013 Act. However, the negotiations failed.

Issues:

a) Whether the Petitioners were entitled to fair compensation for the acquired land.
b) Whether the delay in finalizing the acquisition and compensation violated Article 300A.
c) Whether the Corporation had a duty to expedite the process.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioners: Asserted that compensation was significantly lower than market rates and sought compliance with statutory requirements.
• Respondents: Claimed that an interim payment had been made and the acquisition process was ongoing.