The Supreme Court has held that forcible dispossession of private property is violative of both human rights, and constitutional fundamental rights of a person.
The Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha while deciding on an appeal wherein the land was acquired by the Government without legal proceedings for acquisition and compensation, noted that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellants were aggrieved by final judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposing their writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with law.
Pursuant to a judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court wherein award was passed in favour of neighbouring land whose lands were similarly utilised for the construction of the same road owners fixing compensation, directing the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, writ proceedings before the High Court by similarly situated land owners. They were allowed with the direction to acquire lands of the writ petitioners under the Act, with consequential benefits.
However, the appellant's writ was dismissed and it was held in the impugned judgment 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.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the State had illegally usurped the appellants’ lands, without following due process of law. Reliance was placed on Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. Thr. Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. & Ors., 2012 Latest Caselaw 633 SC, State of U.P.& Ors Vs. Manohar, 2004 Latest Caselaw 718 SC
It was further submitted that the appellants’ case is on the same footing as that of adjoining land owners who were granted compensation and consequential benefits by land acquisition award dated 04.10.2005, and in subsequent writ proceedings.
Counsel urged that the State’s inaction is arbitrary, given that the lands adjoining the subject land were acquired under directions of the High Court, despite it being used for the same purpose. He highlighted that the Respondent-State had not disputed that the appellants were owners of the subject land and thus urged that the High Court had erred in dismissing the writ petition, in light of this court’s decision in Air India Ltd. & Ors Vs. Vishal Capoor & Ors, 2005 Latest Caselaw 512 SC
Counsel for State, on the other hand urged that the petition was hit by immense delay and latches and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Court at the outset noted that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right16, it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in Part III of the Constitution. The right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A.
The Court went on to remark that it is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law and its recognition of this dates back to the 1700s.
In several judgments, this court has repeatedly held that rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, the State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within the confines of legality, and therefore, not tarnished the basic principle of the rule of law, it added.
As far as the subject of private property is concerned, the Court noted that it has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State.
It mentioned Bishandas v. State of Punjab, wherein it had rejected the contention that the petitioners in the case were trespassers and could be removed by an executive order, and instead concluded that the executive action taken by the State and its officers, was destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law.
It also relied on decision in State of U.P. & Ors Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, 1989 Latest Caselaw 12 SC.
In view of the above, the Court noted that given the important protection extended to an individual vis-a-vis their private property and the high threshold the State must meet while acquiring land, the Court questioned that can the State, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated?
Calling the above as 'unacceptable', the Court held that holistically, it is apparent that the State’s actions, or lack thereof, have in fact compounded the injustice meted out to the appellants and compelled them to approach this court, albeit belatedly.
"The initiation of acquisition proceedings initially in the 1990s occurred only at the behest of the High Court. Even after such judicial intervention, the State continued to only extend the benefit of the court’s directions to those who specifically approached the courts. The State’s lackadaisical conduct is discernible from this action of initiating acquisition proceedings selectively, only in respect to the lands of those writ petitioners who had approached the court and in earlier proceedings, and not other land owners."
Referring to Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors , 1968 Latest Caselaw 203 SC, the Court noted that the State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation; there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice.
Concluding that 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 300-A, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2273 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) DIARY NO. 13202 OF 2020)
Coram: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
