Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2773 of 2022 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2022) (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 13202 of 2020)
Decided on : 06-04-2022
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Acquisition of land – Non-payment of compensation – It is cardinal principle of rule of law that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law – Rather than enjoying a wider bandwidth of lenience, State often has a higher responsibility in demonstrating that it has acted within confines of legality and not tarnished basic principle of rule of law – When it comes to subject of private property, Apex Court has upheld high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by State – Given important protection extended to an individual vis-à-vis their private property as a constitutional right in Article 300-A, and high threshold State must meet while acquiring land, State cannot, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated – State’s actions, or lack thereof, have in fact compounded injustice meted out to appellants and compelled them to approach this court – Initiation of acquisition proceedings initially in 1990s occurred only at behest of High Court – Even after such judicial intervention, State continued to only extend benefit of court’s directions to those who specifically approached courts – State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice – State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by courts, rather than to all those who are entitled – This arbitrary action, which is also violative of appellants’ prevailing Article 31 right at the time of cause of action – In absence of written consent to voluntarily give up their land, appellants were entitled to compensation in terms of law – In view of this court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142 of Constitution, State hereby directed to treat subject lands as a deemed acquisition and appropriately disburse compensation to appellants in same terms as order of reference court – Impugned order of High Court set aside with costs of ? 50,000/-. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are aggrieved by final judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, disposing their writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with law. Appellants claim to be owners of land2 situated at Mauzal Sarol Basach, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaour, Himachal Pradesh (‘Subject land’). The Respondent-State utilised the subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of the ‘Narag Fagla Road’ in 1972-73, but allegedly no land acquisition proceedings were initiated, nor compensation given to the appellants or owners of the adjoining land.
Findings of Court:
Given disregard for the appellants’ fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, we also deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent-State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs.50,000/- to appellants.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Delay condoned and leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally. The appellants are aggrieved by final judgment1[Dated 12.09.2013 in CWP No. 7873/2011.] of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, disposing their writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with law.
Facts
2. Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat Ram (hereafter ‘appellants’) claim to be owners of land2[Khasra Nos. 141, 232/142, 143, 144, 145, 281/267, 206/147, 158, 268/149, 282/267, and Khasra Nos. 201/138, 242/146, 209/154, 158, 211/163, 16/172, further Khasra Nos. 50, 51, 89, 278/92, 280/93, and 205/147, 281/267, 151, 152, 283/153, 285/20.] situated at Mauzal Sarol Basach, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaour, Himachal Pradesh (hereafter ‘subject land’). The Respondent-State utilised the subject land and adjoining lands for the construction of the ‘Narag Fagla Road’ in 1972-73, but allegedly no land acquisition proceedings were initiated, nor compensation given to the appellants or owners of the adjoining land.
3. Pursuant to a judgment by the Himachal Pradesh High Court3[In Devender Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 816/1992.] (hereafter ‘High Court’) directing the State to initiate land acquisition proceedings, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter ‘Act’) was issued on 16.10.2001 (published on 30.10.2001) and the award was passed on 20.12.2001 fixing compensation at Rs.30,000 per bigha. Proceedings under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, were initiated by ten neighbouring land owners (Mata Ram and others), whose lands were similarly utilised for the construction of the same road and an award4[Award in Land Ref. Petition No. 10-LAC/4 of 2004 and consolidated matters.] dated 04.10.2005 was passed by the reference court in their favour. It was held that the reference petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.39,000 per bigha; solatium of 30% per annum on the market value of the land; additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act w.e.f. 16.10.2001 (date of issuance of notification under Section 4) till the date of making of the award by the Collector, i.e. 20.12.2001; and under Section 28, interest of 9% per annum from 16.10.2001 for a period of one year, and thereafter 15% per annum, till date of payment. In 2009, the High Court dismissed5[Dated 25.08.2009 in RFA No. 1-9/2006.] the appeal against this order by those claimants, who were seeking statutory interest from the date of taking possession (rather than date of initiation of acquisition proceedings).
4. Similarly situated land owners, filed writ proceedings before the High Court: a writ petition filed by one Anakh Singh, from the adjoining village was allowed by the High Court6[Order dated 23.04.2007 in CWP No. 1192/2004.] with the direction to acquire lands of the writ petitioners under the Act, with consequential benefits; subsequently other similarly situated owners also received7[Order dated 20.12.2013 in CWP No. 1356/2010.] the benefit of these directions.
5. This led the appellants to file a writ petition before the High Court in 2011, seeking compensation for the subject land or initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Act. Relying on a Full bench decision8[Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 1966/2010-C, judgment dated 02.03.2013 (hereafter “Shankar Dass”).] of the High Court, it was held in the impugned judgment that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this court through these appeals.
Contentions of parties
6. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants argued that the State had illegally usu
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
Welfare state cannot deprive property without due process and compensation for public use like road construction; adverse possession, delay, laches, estoppel unavailable despite long delay as continu....
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
Article 300A only limits powers of State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
Welfare State cannot deprive property without due process and compensation under Article 300A; cannot plead adverse possession or delay against owners seeking payment for land used in public road con....
Forcible dispossession without due process violates constitutional rights, necessitating initiation of acquisition proceedings and compensation regardless of alleged delay.
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....
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
