Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3189 OF 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 4125 of 2019)
Decided On : 26-04-2022
(A) Constitution of India – Article 300A read with Article 21 – Acquisition of land – Non-payment of compensation – Appellants did lose their land in construction/widening of road belonging to Panchayat/Municipality – As such, appellants have been deprived of their land in the process – Appellants are farmers and 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 Constitution – Article 300A though not a fundamental right but nevertheless it has status of being a constitutional or a statutory right – There is neither any acquisition proceedings nor any transfer of rights by appellants by way of sale, gift or otherwise – A memorandum or an agreement or a written document ought to have been executed by appellants stating their free will to surrender for no consideration in favour of Panchayat/Municipality – Burden should be on Panchayat/Municipality to prove that there was a voluntary surrender – Division Bench proceeded on a wrong premise on shifting burden on appellants. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Constitution of India – Article 300A – Acquisition of land – Non-payment of compensation – Article 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law – Panchayat as also PWD have failed to produce a single piece of document or evidence in any other form in support of their defence that appellants have surrendered their land voluntarily – Road is in ownership and possession of Panchayat but land over which road was to be constructed or widened was neither in ownership nor possession of Panchayat – Stand of PWD cannot be basis for determining as to whether appellants had surrendered their land free of cost without any claim for compensation or that they had expectations to receive compensation as assured by Panchayat – Division Bench fell in error in taking into consideration stand of PWD – Appellants are farmers – They cannot be treated as persons conversant with intricacies of law – Appellants had, from very beginning, stated that assurance was given by Panchayat – They had not changed their stand but were consistent – Division Bench committed error in commenting against appellants and drawing an adverse inference – It took a view too technical, to deprive appellants of their right to compensation – Construction/widening of road would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation action of respondents would be arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 300-A of Constitution – Judgment and order of Division Bench of High Court set aside and that of Single Judge maintained. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have assailed correctness of Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2108 of 2016 between Sulthan Bathery Municipality vs. Kalyani and 12 others, whereby the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. Sole question for consideration would be as to whether appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land to Panchayat free of cost without raising any claim for compensation or not.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order of the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala dated 12.09.2018 in W.A. No. 2108 of 2016 is hereby set aside and that of the Single Judge dated 26.08.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 2329 of 2014 is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. Appellants - eight in number, have assailed the correctness of Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2108 of 2016 between Sulthan Bathery Municipality vs. Kalyani and 12 others, whereby the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.
3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants are the owners of the land in dispute measuring 1.7078 hectares. The land is situate within the territorial limits of Respondent No.1, Sulthan Bhathery Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the “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.
4. 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 by way of W.P. (C) No. 2329 of 2014. Before the learned Single Judge, affidavits were exchanged.
5. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the Panchayat was that the land had been voluntarily given without any claim for compensation. The Panchayat denied of having given any assurance regarding adequate compensation to be paid to the appellants. It was also alleged that the construction of road was completed in 2010 whereas the appellants approached the High Court in 2014 as such, the petition was substantially delayed and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the Appellants had voluntarily surrendered their portion of land for the purpose of construction/widening of the road and that is why no proceedings for acquisition were undertaken.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the State-Respondent i.e., Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to as the “PWD”), it was stated that the Panchayat had handed over the land for the construction/widening of the road. The road is owned and possessed by the Panchayat and the PWD had only been assigned the work of construction for which due documents were executed. It also denied having encroached upon any part of the land of the appellants. It was also stated that to the best information of PWD, the land in question was surrendered free of cost.
7. 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. It was also recorded in the findings that there was no issue or dispute that the land of the appellants has not been utilized for the construction/widening of the road. Learned Single Judge, further, after considering the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution held that appellants would be entitled to compensation for the land utilized for the construction/widening of the road. Since, the Road is owned and possessed by Panchayat, the learned Single Judge issued appropriate directions to the State-Respondents as also to the 3rd Respondent i.e. Panchayat (converted into “Municipality”), would disburse the amount as may be determined by the Collector after determining the market value of the property to the concerned parties. It also gave liberty to the appellants that in case they were not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Collector, they could raise the challenge before the Civil Court. The relevant findings and the
The right to property under Article 300A mandates just compensation for land utilized by authorities, overriding regulations allowing nominal payment, ensuring constitutional protections are upheld.
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized for public projects, and claims cannot be dismissed based on implied consent or delay in seeking redress.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the PMGSY, the State Government is obligated to acquire land and pay compensation to landowners from its own resources for road construc....
Forceful dispossession and use of private land for public purpose without following due process of law violates the constitutional right under Article 300A, and delay cannot negate the claim for comp....
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
The right to property under Article 300-A mandates compensation for land acquisition, and the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without due process and compensation.
Forcible dispossession without due process violates constitutional rights, necessitating initiation of acquisition proceedings and compensation regardless of alleged delay.
The court affirmed that the right to property is a human right, requiring lawful acquisition and compensation when expropriated, underlining legal obligations of the State in welfare contexts.
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
