Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the Judgment by High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposing their writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with law.
Brief Facts:
Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat Ram (appellants) claim to be owners of land. The Respondent-State utilised the subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of the Road in 1972-73, but allegedly no land acquisition proceedings were initiated, nor compensation given to the appellants or owners of the adjoining land. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued and the award was passed fixing compensation at ₹30,000 per bigha. Proceedings under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, were initiated by ten neighbouring land owners, whose lands were similarly utilised for the construction of the same road and an award was passed by the reference court in their favour. In 2009, the High Court dismissed the appeal against this order by those claimants, who were seeking statutory interest from the date of taking possession. Similarly situated land owners, filed writ proceedings before the High Court: a writ petition filed by one Anakh Singh, from the adjoining village was allowed by the High Court with the direction to acquire lands of the writ petitioners under the Ac. This led the appellants to file a writ petition before the High Court in 2011, seeking compensation for the subject land or initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Act.
High Court’s Decision:
It was 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 writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the State had illegally usurped the appellants’ lands, without following due process of law. 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. Counsel highlighted that the Respondent-State had not disputed that the appellants were owners of the subject land, that it had been taken and used by the State for construction of Road, and that no compensation had been paid.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petition was hit by immense delay and latches and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone: appellants had approached the High Court after an inordinate delay of 38 years in 2011, against action taken by the State in 1972-73; and an inordinate delay of about 6 years in approaching this court after passing of the impugned judgment in 2013.
It was submitted that the road was in fact constructed at the request of the appellants, and other landowners who wanted the benefit of connectivity; counsel claims that they volunteered their land for this purpose, and hence, it was constructed with their verbal consent. Lastly, it was argued that construction of the road, and verbal consent for the same – the appropriate forum would be the civil court, and thus the impugned order required no intervention.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, 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. SC stated 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.
The question before the SC was can the State, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated? SC stated 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.
SC found that the contentions raised by the State, do not inspire confidence and deserve to be rejected. The State has merely averred to the appellants’ alleged verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any material on record to substantiate this plea. Further, the State was unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the State is hereby directed to treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005 in Land Ref. Petition. The Respondent-State is directed, consequently to ensure that the appropriate Land Acquisition Collector computes the compensation, and disburses it to the appellants, within four months. The appellants would also be entitled to consequential benefits of solatium, and interest on all sums payable under law, till the date of the impugned judgment. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is hereby set aside.”
Case Title: Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Citation: Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 13202 Of 2020
Decided on: 6th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
