Constitution of India – Arts. 31, 136, 142 and 300A – Respondent-State took over the land of the appellant in 1967–68 for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law – Construction of the road completed by 1975 – In 2004, some similarly situated persons whose lands were also taken over by the respondent for the same public purpose, filed writ petition titled Anakh Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. claiming compensation – Allowed – Respondent initiated acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act only with respect to the lands of the writ petitioners, and not the other land-owners whose lands were also taken over – Appellant filed writ petition inter alia praying that the State be directed to pay compensation for the land acquired in 1967-68 – High Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings, however granted liberty to the appellant to file suit– Review Petition dismissed – On appeal, held: In the present case, the appellant being an illiterate person, a widow coming from rural area was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was fundamental right (though ceased to be so by the 1978 Amendment Act) guaranteed by Art.31 in Part III of the Constitution – To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of human right, as also the constitutional right u/Art.300 A – Cause of action is a continuing one, since the appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without any legal sanction– In view of extraordinary jurisdiction u/Arts. 136 and 142, the State is directed to pay compensation to the appellant on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court by order dtd. 07.07.15 in Anakh Singh’s case with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition – Affidavit of compliance be filed by the State before Supreme Court within 10 weeks – If appeal is filed by the appellant within 8 weeks from the date of compensation being paid to her by the State, the appeal will be treated to be within limitation, and decided on its own merits in accordance with law– State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs.1,00,0000/- to the appellant– Orders passed by the High Court set aside– Land Acquisition Act, 1894– Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978– Doctrine of adverse possession.
Principles/Doctrines – Doctrine of adverse possession – Appellant’s land taken over by the Respondent-State in 1967–68 for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law – Plea of adverse possession taken by State – Held: State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years – State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as done in the present case. Constitution of India – Arts.136, 142 and 226 – Land of the appellant (an illiterate person, widow from rural area) was taken over by the Respondent-State in 1967–68 for the construction of Nadaun-Sujanpur Road, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law – Appellant approached the High Court in 2010 – State took the plea of delay and laches by the appellant in moving the Court – Held: Rejected – 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 – Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case – It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose – There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Appellant was forcibly expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to private property, which could not be deprived without due process of law and upon just and fair compensation. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article
300 A of the Constitution. [Paras 10.1 and 10.2][755-G-H; 756-C]
The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 92 : [1954] SCR 587; K T Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 : [2011]
13 SCR 636 – followed.
Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.
(2013) 1 SCC 353 : [2012] 13 SCR 29; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 388; N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC
517 : [2008] 9 SCR 535; Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 354 : [2012] 12 SCR 191; Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 807 – relied on.
1.2 The Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967. There is complete lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the Appellant of her property by the State. In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law. [Paras 10.3-10.5][756-F-G; 758-A]
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 404 : [2011] 14 SCR 211; P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. (1975) 1 SCC 152 : [1975] 2 SCR 356 – relied on.
1.3 The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. 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. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. [Paras 10.6, 10.7][758-D-G]
1.4 The Appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The Appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. Extraordinary jurisdiction is exercised under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the Appellant. The Respondent–State is directed to pay the compensation on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court vide Order dated 07.07.2015 in Anakh Singh’s case (i.e. Land Reference No.1 of 2011 RBT No.01/13) alongwith all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. An Affidavit of compliance is directed to be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks. It is informed that an appeal has been preferred by Ravinder Singh s/o Anakh Singh & Ors. being RFA No.35 of 2016 which is pending before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. Taking note thereof, if an appeal is filed by the present appellant within 8 weeks from the date of compensation being paid to her by the State, the appeal will be treated to be within limitation, and would be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Orders dated 11.09.13 and
13.05.14 passed by the High Court are set aside. [Paras 11, 1314][759-E-F; 760-B-D]
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.