Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 300-A – Right against depriviation of property – Respondent state utilised subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of road in 1972-73 – Appellants claimed to be owners of subject land – Allegedly no land acquisition proceedings were initiated nor compensation was given to the appellants or the owners of the adjoining lands – Land acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of neighbouring land owners and award was passed on 04.10.2005 – Appellants filed writ petition in 2011 before the High Court seeking compensation for the subject land or initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act – High Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings – In the instant appeals, question that arose was can the State, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property was expropriated – Held: The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches – There cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice – The State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as was required by law – This arbitrary action was also violative of the appellant’s prevailing Art. 31 right – The State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants was taken over in the manner known to law or have ever paid any compensation – Appellants too were illegally dispossessed without following due process of law – In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law – Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Arts.136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is directed to treat the subject land as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005 – State is also directed to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants – Land acquisition – Limitation – Delay and laches. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts of the present case reveal that the State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled. This arbitrary action, which is also violative of the appellants’ prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction. [Para 19][1051-C-E]
State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126 – referred to.
2. The State has merely averred to the appellants’ alleged verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any material on record to substantiate this plea. Further, the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation. This was the State’s position and subsequent findings of the High Court in 2007 as well, in the other writ proceedings. [Para 21][1052-F-H]
3. The State’s contention that since the property is not adjoining to that of the appellants, it disentitles them from claiming benefit on the ground of parity cannot be accepted. Despite it not being adjoining (which is admitted in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellants), it is clear that the subject land was acquired for the same reason – construction of the Narag Fagla Road, in 1972-73, and much like the claimants before the reference court, these appellants too were illegally dispossessed without following due process of law thus resulting in violation of Article 31 and warranting the High Court’s intervention under Article 226 jurisdiction. In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law. The forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300A. [Paras 22 and 25][1052-H; 1053-A-C; 1054-D]
Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569- relied on.
4. In view of this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is hereby directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005. The Respondent-State is directed, consequently to ensure that the appropriate Land Acquisition Collector computes the compensation, and disburses it to the appellants, within four months. The appellants would also be entitled to consequential benefits of solatium, and interest on all sums payable under law w.e.f 16.10.2001 (i.e. date of issuance of notification under Section
4 of the Act), till the date of the impugned judgment, i.e. 12.09.2013. Given the disregard for the appellants’ fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, the RespondentState is directed to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants. [Paras 26 and 27][1054-E-G; 1055-A-B] Bishandas v. State of Punjab [1962] 2 SCR 69;
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [1969] 1 SCR 808 – followed.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [2005] Supp (3) SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2011] 12 SCR 191; Jilubhai Nanbhai Kahchar v. State of Gujarat [1994] Supp 1 SCR 807 – relied on. Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) [2012] 13 SCR; Air India Ltd. vs. Vishal Capoor [2005] Supp 3 SCR 670; State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar [1995] Supp 1 SCR 492; State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [1964] 6 SCR 261; Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 351; Wazir Chand vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh [1955] 1 SCR 408; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. vs. Dharmander Prasad Singh and Ors. [1989] 1 SCR 176 – referred to. Entick vs. Carrington [1765] EWHC (KB) 198 –
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.