Back
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
S. Saroop Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. displaced persons' rights to compensation for land. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. impact of governmental agreements on land rights. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal validation of land occupancy and rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. requirements for lawful dispossession of property. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. rehabilitation and compensation under law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 6. government obligations for property rights. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 7. emphasis on due process in property acquisition. (Para 24 , 50) |
JUDGEMENT
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners on behalf of all the family members/descendents of 24 displaced persons (DPs) of 1947 to whom the land measuring 224 Kanals and 10 Marlas falling under Khasra Nos. 2, 3 and 6 of Village Chatha, Jammu was allotted in the year 1953 by the State Government for their rehabilitation under Government Order No. 578-C of 1954 for vindication of their common rights for getting compensation for the aforementioned land from the respondent-Union of India, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is illegally and unlawfully o
The State cannot dispossess individuals of property without proper legal processes, affirming the entitlement to compensation for land occupied without due course of law.
State's unauthorized occupation of private property without acquisition violates Article 300A; unsubstantiated donation claims rejected; delay and laches no bar to compensation for continuing wrong. ....
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
Where the deprivation of property without sanction of law is admitted and clearly established, there is no difficulty in applying above principle and, as such, a petition for compensation cannot be d....
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, requiring due process and compensation for any deprivation.
The State cannot plead adverse possession in respect of the land of its citizens under its unauthorized occupation, and delay and latches cannot be used to deny compensation to the citizens deprived ....
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
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
