State Cannot Evade Compensation for 65-Year-Old Land Use by Citing Delay: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional property rights, the Karnataka High Court has held that the State cannot evade its duty to pay compensation for private land utilized for a public purpose decades ago by merely citing delay and laches. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed a government order that had denied compensation to a landowner whose property was used to build a school and a road in 1957.

The court declared that the constitutional obligation to compensate under Article 300-A is not extinguished by the passage of time, especially when the State admits to using the property without following the due process of law.

Background of the Case

The case was brought by Sri H.P. Ramesh, whose father owned 2 acres and 8 guntas of land in Haradagere Village. In 1957, the State government utilized a portion of this land to construct a government school and form a road. Despite numerous representations over the years, no compensation was paid.

After a previous writ petition in 2016 directed the authorities to consider the matter, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on November 8, 2021, rejecting the claim for compensation. The primary reason cited was the inordinate delay of over 60 years in seeking relief. This rejection prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court again.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner, represented by Sri Kishan G.S., argued that since the State admittedly utilized the private land for a public purpose, compensation was a matter of right. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh , the counsel asserted that the question of limitation or delay cannot be raised as a defense by the State in such cases.

State's Defense: The government pleader contended that the petitioner's father had "voluntarily" handed over the land in 1957. It was argued that the claim was barred by delay and laches, as the petitioner remained silent for over 60 years. The State claimed that its continuous and peaceful possession for a noble public purpose like education estopped the petitioner from claiming compensation now.

Court's Reasoning: Upholding Constitutional Sanctity of Property

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in a detailed judgment, addressed the central question: "does the time extinguish the constitutional obligation to compensate or does the rule of law compel the State to answer for its actions even after an aeon."

The Court embarked on a thorough review of jurisprudence, tracing the right to property from the 1765 King's Bench ruling in Entick v. Carrington to recent landmark Supreme Court decisions. The judgment heavily cited the principles laid down in * Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh * and Sukh Dutt Ratra , which established that:

• The right to property under Article 300-A is a constitutional and a human right.
• The State cannot deprive a citizen of their property without the sanction of law.
• The State, as a welfare entity, cannot take the plea of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.
• Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, and there can be no "limitation" to doing justice.

The Court observed that the State's own admission of using the land without lawful acquisition was fatal to its defense. The judge noted, "The government prima facie, cannot become an encroacher of a private property."

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

Emphasizing the State's obligation, the Court held:

> "On a coalesce of the judgments quoted hereinabove... the law has stood as an unyielding sentinel guardian to an individual against any intrusion by the State particularly, when it concerns a private land... when the State by its own hand has taken away the possession of the citizen’s private land, whether by force oversight or voluntarily handed over, it must meet the threshold of justification by grant of compensation."

The Court concluded that allowing the State's action to stand would be a "violence to the constitutional fibre."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition and delivered the following orders:

1. The impugned government order dated November 8, 2021, denying compensation was quashed.

2. The State respondents were directed to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of the ** Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013**.

3. The entire process must be completed within three months.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that the State's power of eminent domain is not absolute and must be exercised in strict adherence to the rule of law. It reaffirms that constitutional rights cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or delay, ensuring that citizens are not left without remedy against the State's arbitrary actions, no matter how long ago they occurred.