Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Kanyawati – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anish Kumar Gutpa, J.
1. Heard Sri Vimlesh Kumar and Sri Shiv Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the District Level Committee constituted under a Government Order dated 12.05.2016, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 29915 of 2019 (Smt. Kanyavati vs. State of U.P.).
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land situated at Khasra No. 53 area 0.0690 hectare situated at Village- Akha, Pargana- Ballia, Tehsil- Anwala, District- Bareilly, which she had purchased by way of sale deed from Fate Singh (However, from the perusal of the sale deed dated 02.12.2009 annexed as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder, it is apparent that the petitioner had purchased the land from Smt. Urmila Devi). On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, her name was mutated in the revenue records as bhumidhar with transferable rights. On the south of the aforesaid plot, was a chak road. The case of the petitioner is tha
The State cannot utilize private property without lawful acquisition and compensation, as protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
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.
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.
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....
The court affirmed that oral consent for land acquisition must be evidenced in writing, and deprivation of property without compensation violates constitutional rights.
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.
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
