On Wednesday, Apex Court Bench stated that,"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".
SC bench comprising of Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi passed the judgment in the case titled Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein the Bench enunciated that the State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession by stating that it has been in continuous possession of the land for over 42 years.
State took over the land of the appellant for the construction of a major District Road without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings, or following due process of law. The appellant did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the State who was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh 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. The Appellant was granted liberty to file a Civil Suit. The Appellant filed a Review Petition against the Judgment and Order of the High Court to challenge the judgment passed in the Writ Petition and order passed in Review Petition.
The Supreme Court stated that, “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.”
While passing the judgement court has been relied on various judgments, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, wherein this Court held that, “Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.”
Supreme Court while dismissing the judgment of the High Court expounded that, “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 Supreme Court of India held that, “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. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct the State to pay compensation to the Appellant.”
The Supreme Court directed the State to paypay legal costs and expenses to the tune of Rs.1,00,0000/.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
