Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala whereby the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed
Brief Facts:
The appellants are the owners of the land in dispute. The land is situated within the territorial limits of Respondent No.1, Sulthan Bhathery Grama Panchayat, later on declared a Municipality. The Panchayat requested the appellants to utilize their land for construction/widening of Sulthan Batheri Bypass Road. The appellants were assured that they would be given adequate compensation for their land utilized for the said purpose. According to the appellants, they gave their land on the assurance that they would be given compensation. The road was constructed but no compensation was paid. The appellants made various representations starting from the time, construction was going on and even after the construction work was completed. But when no heed was paid to their request, they approached the High Court of Kerala. Before the learned Single Judge, affidavits were exchanged. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 26.08.2016, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to show that the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land or that they had given up their right to claim any compensation.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that 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.
SC further stated that 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. In the present 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.
SC opined that 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 question before the SC was whether the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land to the Panchayat free of cost without raising any claim for compensation or not?
SC stated that the Panchayat as also the PWD have 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. 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. 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.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “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. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgement and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 12.09.2018 is hereby set aside.”
Case Title: Kalyani Through Lrs. & Ors. v. The Sultan Bathery Municipality & Ors.
Bench: J. Dinesh Maheshwari and J. Vikram Nath
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3189 OF 2022
Decided on: 26th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
