Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In the year 1977, a land owned by appellant was acquired – Compensation was not paid – The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition on the count that the petition had been filed after a period of forty-two years of the acquisition – However, the Division Bench of the High Court asked the appellant to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the land assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- – Correctness:
Held: The High Court in its impugned order has stated that the appellant herein has been informed about the value of the land assessed at Rs 4,68,099 – There is no reason as to on what basis this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time this amount came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment of such amount – The High Court should have enquired with the State as to why in the year 1977 itself, that is the year in which the land came to be acquired, the award for compensation was not passed – The High Court did not enquire why it took forty-two years for the State to determine the figure of Rs 4,68,099 – The High Court should also have asked the State the basis of the determination of the amount towards compensation – It is a well settled position of law that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the owner of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even file an appeal for the enhancement of the same – The High Court proceeded on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been assessed and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate application and get the amount disbursed in his favour – The approach adopted by the High Court is not convincing – The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law – The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A of the Constitution, can be inferred in that Article – The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the writ petition only on the ground of delay – It is settled that delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the court – In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it – In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. [Paras 13, 14, 18, 25, 26, 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.