Back
VIJAY BISHNOI, SUMAN SHYAM
On the Death of Hemanta Kumar Mandal his Sons and Legal Heirs Amar Chand Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the writ petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 13/06/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2904/2015, dismissing the writ petition primarily on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, in approaching the Court. By filing the above mentioned writ petition, the petitioners had assailed the order dated 10/03/2015, by means of which, their prayer for payment of compensation for the alleged acquisition of land for construction of 31 No. National Highway at Barpeta Road was rejected by the authorities.
2. The facts and circumstances of the case, in a nutshell, are that the predecessor-in- interest of appellant nos. 1 (I), (II) and (III) viz. late Hemanta Kumar Mandal along with the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant No. 2 (iv) (a) & (b) i.e. late Dhirendra Das and 4 others, had jointly instituted WP(C) No. 2904/2015 inter alia, contending that land measuring 7 Bighas 4 Kathas 17 Lechas forming part and parcel of land measuring 11 Bighas 04 Kathas 02 Lechas, belonging to them had been acquired by the State for construction of
Unexplained delay in claiming compensation for land acquisition extinguishes rights; claimants must establish ownership and acquisition through evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing evidence and timely raising compensation claims in land acquisition cases, highlighting the requirement for departmental records and notificatio....
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
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.
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
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 is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
The court affirmed that possession of land for public use requires legal authority and compensation, emphasizing that delay cannot bar just claims for compensation.
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
