Through the judgment delivered in the case – Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, delivered on January 8, 2020, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi, at the Supreme Court, have made it amply clear that to forcibly dispossess a person of his/her private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.
In support of its latest ruling in this case, the Court has relied upon its judgments in the cases – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai – (2005) 7 SCC 627, N.Padmamma v. S.Ramkrishna Reddy-(2008) 15 SCC 517, Delhi Airtech Services Pvt.Ltd.& Others –(2011) 9 SCC 354 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar – (1995) Supp.1 SCC 596.
In this case, 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 the year 1967.
The contention of the State that or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless. The Court has found 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 his/her property without the sanction of law. Placing reliance on the SC decision in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others v. MIDC & Others – (2013) 1 SCC 353, it has been reiterated by the Court that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
The Court was surprised by the plea taken by the State before the HC, that since it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to “adverse possession”. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser – a person guilty of a tort (civil wrong) or even a crime , to gain legal title over a such property after remaining in adverse possession 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 this case.
The SC also rejected the contention advanced by the State, of delay and laches on part of the appellant in moving the Court , observing that , such a plea 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.
In a case, where the demand for justice is so compelling , a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it - [P.S.Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. – (1975) 1 SCC 152].
In this case, the SC points out that the appellant (80) being an illiterate widow, coming from 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 this case is continuing one, since the expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law.
This case is one wherein the demand of justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was acquired without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. The Court has stated that in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, SC directed the State to pay compensation to the appellant.
It was submitted by the State Govt. that in the year 2008, it had initiated acquisition proceedings in the case of an adjoining land-owner, Anakh Singh pursuant to a direction given by the HC in the WP 1192/2004. The State initiated acquisition only in the case where directions were issued by the HC and not in the case of other land-owners whose lands were compulsorily taken over, for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a consequence, the present land-owners had to move the court in their individual cases for redressal.
The 80 years old appellant lady was undisputedly owner of the land admeasuring about 3.34 hectares in a village of Hamirpur district in Himachal Pradesh. The respondent –State took over her land in the year 1967-68 for the construction of a major District road without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings or following due process of law. The construction of road was completed by 1975.the lady was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the State.
In the year 2004, some similarly situated persons whose lands also been taken over by the respondent-State dor the same public purpose filed WP – Anakh Singh and Others, claiming compensation before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On April 23, 2007, the HC allowed the petition and directed the respondent-State to acquire the land of the writ petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Complying with the order of the HC in the year 2008, the State Govt. initiated acquisition proceedings only with respect to the land of those writ petitioners, and not the other land-owners, whose lands had also been taken over. After knowing about these proceedings, the appellant along with her two daughters filed WP in the HC praying for direction to the State Govt. to pay compensation.
The HC disposed of the writ petition through its judgment on September 11, 2013, holding case involved disputed facts and granted liberty to the appellant to file civil suit. Her review petition n was also dismissed on May 13, 2014.This made her to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, The SC has directed the State Govt. to pay the compensation to the appellant on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court through its order of July 7, 2015 in Anakh Singh’s case along with all statutory benefits including solatium , interest etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. The Court has sought an affidavit of compliance within 10 weeks.
The Court has also clarified that if an appeal is filed by the appellant in the HC in 8 weeks from the date of compensation being paid to her by the State, the same should be treated as within limitation and should be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. The State Govt. has been also directed to pay to the appellant Rs one lakh legal costs and expenses. The Sc has allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the HC on September 11, 2013 and May 13, 2014.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
