State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.
Background
The Maharashtra Government had long requisitioned floor space in two Bombay buildings, a floor of "Reliance Centre" (owned by Reliance Industries Ltd., though the underlying land belonged to the Port Trust) and a floor of the "Express Building" (leased by Express Newspapers from the Government), for use by government departments like the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Rationing/Civil Supplies Department. After years of prolonged requisitioning, the State moved to formally acquire these floors under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but without acquiring the land beneath them, since in both cases the building owners did not also own the land. The High Court had quashed these acquisitions as legally unsustainable, holding that a building cannot be acquired without the land under it, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that where only part of a multi-storied building is being acquired, especially where the building's owner is not also the land's owner, the land need not be separately acquired, because the owner's entire interest in that portion of the building can be fully acquired on its own. It distinguished this from cases involving acquisition of an entire house/building, where the land underneath must also be taken; here, only floors/portions were involved and the land was already vested in a different owner (the Port Trust or the Government as lessor). The Court rejected the argument that this amounted to an unconstitutional overreach of the State's eminent domain power, and held that the land acquisition notifications were valid. It accordingly allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the acquisition proceedings, which had been stalled for years due to interim stay orders, be completed as expeditiously as possible.
Lesson Learnt
When the government acquires only a defined portion (such as a floor) of a building whose owner does not also own the underlying land, it is not legally required to acquire that land separately: the acquisition can be confined to the specific built-up interest actually being taken, provided the owner's full interest in that portion is compensated.