Introduction
In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) to acquire the land of the Petitioners, which was taken over more than 37 years prior to the filing of the Petition, under the provisions of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, and to pay compensation to the Petitioner within a period of three months.

Background and Procedural History
In a Writ Petition filed before the Bombay High Court in the year 2022, the Petitioners claimed to be successors in title of a certain landowner whose property had been occupied by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) since 1984, as revealed by a survey conducted in 2019 at the instance of the Petitioners. The record showed that MSEDCL had erected an electricity substation on the subject plot. It was also revealed that MSEB, the predecessor of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL), had applied to the State Government to acquire the said plot by following the procedure under Sections 128 and 129 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. However, the proceedings for the acquisition of the land had not been conducted. The possession of the land was subsequently transferred to MSEDCL. Consequently, the Petition was filed, accusing MSEDCL of being an unlawful encroacher and usurper of the subject land. The Petitioners contended that the only correct redress was that the land acquisition procedure under the then applicable law, namely, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, should be followed, and the Petitioners should be awarded compensation.

Contentions of the state and MSEDCL
The Respondents opposed the Petition on the ground of delays and laches, that is, the Petition was filed after a delay of nearly 40 years from the date of possession by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). It was also contended that the Electricity Law, that is, the Electricity Act and regulations made thereunder, have waded into the domain of the Land Acquisition Act. The Electricity Act stipulates the formation of an Electricity Code. The 2021 Regulations under the Electricity Act are a self-contained code and are made under Section 50 of the Electricity Act. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that this would deal with all matters of rights and obligations connected with the supply of electricity. It was further contended by the Respondents that by virtue of Regulation 6.5 of the 2021 Regulations, the Petitioners, at best would be allowed a lease rental of Rs. 1 per annum.

High Court’s Decision
In addressing the issue of delay and laches, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court applied relevant principles to the case. The Court found that dismissing the Petitioners' Writ Petition solely based on delay would be unjust. It also noted that considering the Petition on its merits would not disadvantage Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) and the State. The Court identified the main argument that electricity law supersedes land acquisition laws as misconceived. The Court observed that there was no dispute over the identity of the Subject Land or its possession history. It was evident that the State had not chosen a specific legislation for land acquisition and was aware of its obligation to pay compensation yet failed to do so. The Court concluded that the Petitioners were entitled to compensation for the land acquired by MSEDCL. The Court directed the Collector, to calculate compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act within three months and ensure its payment by MSEDCL. This decision ensures justice is served without causing undue harm to any party involved.¹

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar