Constitution of India: Art. 300A–No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law – Right to compensation to the farmers for the land acquired – Held: Art. 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law–On facts, appellants are farmers – They gave their agricultural land to Panchayat/Municipality for being utilized for the construction of road, on assurance that they would be given compensation, however the same was not given – Land was part of their livelihood – Depriving them of their part of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of law would be violative of Art. 21 and Art. 300A –No authority of law under which the land of the appellants-farmers was taken and they were deprived of the same – If the Panchayat and the PWD failed to produce any evidence that appellants have surrendered their lands voluntarily, depriving the appellants of the property would be in violation of Art. 300-A– Construction/widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation the action of the Panchayat/Municipality would be arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly violative of Art. 300-A–Thus, the judgement of the Single Judge of the High Court that the appellants would be entitled to compensation for the land utilized for the construction/widening of the road is upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellants did lose their land in the construction/widening of the road belonging to the Panchayat/Municipality. The road as it existed and after further construction and widening would be owned by the Panchayat/Municipality, that is to say that the appellants would be deprived of their right, title or interest over the land utilized for the said purpose. As such the appellants have been deprived of their land in the said process. The appellants are farmers and the land utilized is agricultural land. It was part of their livelihood. Depriving them of their part of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of law would be violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution. [Paras 9, 10][858-D-F]
1.2 Article 300A though not a fundamental right but nevertheless it has status of being a constitutional or a statutory right. It provides that no citizen would be deprived of his property save without authority of law. Depriving somebody of his property, where it is land, can be made by number of modes e.g. by acquisition, surrender or by transfer and other facets also. In the instant case, it being utilized for the road to be owned by the Panchayat/Municipality, it could either have been voluntarily surrendered, transferred by way of title deeds or by way of acquisition as may be provided under the statute. [Para 11] [858-G-H]
1.3 In the instant case, admittedly, there is neither any acquisition proceedings nor any transfer of rights by the appellants by way of sale, gift or otherwise. What is being alleged is that it was a voluntarily surrender of rights for no consideration. This is the stand taken by Panchayat/Municipality. If the Panchayat/Municipality is taking this stand, the burden would be on the Panchayat/Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. A memorandum or an agreement or a written document ought to have been executed by the appellants stating their free will to surrender for no consideration in favour of the Panchayat/Municipality. The Single Judge clearly recorded that Panchayat/Municipality as also the PWD failed to produce any such evidence. Even the Division Bench did not find any material on record produced by the Panchayat/Municipality or the PWD to the said effect. However, the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that the burden would lie on the appellants to establish that they were given an assurance. It is the Panchayat/Municipality which is the beneficiary. Burden should be on the Panchayat/Municipality to prove that there was a voluntary surrender. The Division Bench proceeded on a wrong premise on shifting the burden on the appellants. The assertion that it was surrendered voluntarily without any claim for consideration is by the Panchayat/Municipality. The PWD has only stated that it received the land from Panchayat and that it was given to understand that the land was surrendered voluntarily. Thus, it is the stand of Panchayat/Municipality which is to be taken note of. [Paras 12-14] [859-A-F]
1.4 Another reasoning given by the Division Bench is that the appellants made a stale claim and it was as an afterthought that they started claiming compensation after construction/widening of the road had completed. This reasoning of the Division Bench, was also not sustainable in as much as the appellants had represented at the earliest, after the land was utilized, to the authorities to pay the compensation. As far as the averments in the petition are concerned, they refer to a couple of representations given right from 2011 onwards and when nothing proceeded, the appellants approached the High Court in 2014. Therefore, to say that there was substantial delay on the part of the appellants in agitating for their rights would not be correct. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat and also the PWD, the representation of the petitioners referred to above are not denied. [Para 15][859-F-H; 860-C]
1.5 The Division Bench noted that there was no scheme for road development by giving price of the land acquired. This observation by the Division Bench would also be contrary to mandate of Article 300A. If there was no scheme, then it was the fault of the State or the Panchayat. To say that there was no scheme is one thing and owner of the land surrendering his land voluntarily without payment of compensation would be different. If there was no such scheme then all the more it was necessary to get the surrender, if any, documented, by the Panchayat/Municipality or the State or the PWD, as the case may be. [Para 16][860-C-E]
1.6 The Panchayat as also the PWD failed to produce a single piece of document or evidence in any other form in support of their defense that the appellants have surrendered their land voluntarily. The consistent stand of the appellants, on the other hand, has been that they have not given their land to the Panchayat voluntarily and that they were assured that they would be suitably compensated. The PWD proceeded to construct the road upon the land made available by the Panchayat. No doubt, the road is in the ownership and possession of the Panchayat but the land over which the road was to be constructed or widened was neither in ownership nor possession of the Panchayat. The PWD did not care to take any further clarification from the Panchayat as to whether such land has been acquired, purchased or voluntarily given by the land owners. The PWD only stated that it received the land from Panchayat and that it was informed that such land has been made available voluntarily without any claim for compensation and free of cost. The stand of the PWD cannot be the basis for determining as to whether the appellants had surrendered their land free of cost without any claim for compensation or that they had expectations to receive compensation as assured by the Panchayat. The Division Bench erred in taking into consideration the stand of the PWD. [Paras 17, 18][860-F-H; 861-A-B]
1.7 The Division Bench also proceeded to note that the appellants were keen on changing their stand by initially claiming from the State and then from the Panchayat. This reasoning is also not tenable. The appellants are farmers. They cannot be treated as the persons conversant with intricacies of law. The appellants had, from the very beginning, stated that assurance was given by the Panchayat. They had not changed their stand but were consistent. It is for this reason that the Single Judge had although directed the collector to determine the value of compensation but the liability to pay the compensation was saddled on the Panchayat/Municipality and not on the State. The Division Bench erred in commenting against the appellants and drawing an adverse inference. It took a view too technical, to deprive the appellants of their right to compensation. [Para 19][861-C-D]
1.8 Article 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In the instant case, it cannot be found, under which authority of law, the land of the appellants was taken and they were deprived of the same. If the Panchayat and the PWD failed to produce any evidence that appellants have surrendered their lands voluntarily, depriving the appellants of the property would be in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution. Construction/widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation the action of the respondents would be arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The judgement and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the Single Judge is maintained. [Paras 20-22][861-E-F; 862-C-D]
K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR 636 – referred to.
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.