Back
Rules Compensation Claim For Demolition Not A
Compensation for Demolition: Not Every Government Action is a
In a significant ruling, the has clarified that a claim for compensation for alleged demolition of a building by government authorities cannot automatically be treated as a , especially when the property is partly on government land and remain.
Justice Devashis Baruah, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a filed by the legal heirs of the late Indrasan Prasad Choudhury, seeking compensation from the and other officials for damaging a two-storey RCC building.
Building on Government Land: A Disputed Ownership
The case originated from an incident on , when officials of the , , and , along with armed police, allegedly demolished a portion of the petitioner's building. The original petitioner claimed absolute ownership over 2 Kathas 7 Lechas of land and had constructed a building over it.
However, the respondent authorities contested this claim. They stated that the petitioner’s land was actually only 2 Kathas 2 Lechas and that a portion of the building encroached upon Government Dag No.1038, which was reserved as “Gobat” (government reserve land). Eviction proceedings had been initiated under the Settlement Rules framed under the .
The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner had obstructed government officials, leading to an FIR being registered against him.
Court's Stand: Not Every Wrong is a
The court examined whether the alleged demolition amounted to a , which would entitle the petitioners to compensation under (right to life and property). The court noted that the petitioner had failed to file a reply to the respondents' affidavits, which clearly stated that the building was on government land.
“Under such circumstances, if any portion of the Petitioner's building was standing upon a Government land bearing Dag No.1038 and the said aspect having not been denied, this Court cannot hold that the Respondent Authorities have violated the Petitioner's constitutional rights and thereby to impose compensation against the Respondents on the commission of .”
The court further observed that the right to seek compensation for a is personal to the original petitioner and does not survive upon death.
“The right to seek such compensation is personal to the original Petitioner. Though, the original Petitioner was substituted upon his death by the present Petitioners, the loss sustained by the original Petitioner do not survive upon the death of the original Petitioner or in other words, the does not survive.”
Must Be Resolved by Civil Court
Another key aspect was that questions of fact—such as whether damage was caused to the petitioner's building, the extent of such damage, and the —are not suitable for adjudication in , as they require evidence.
“...this Court that this is not a case which would come within the ambit of a . Apart from that, any other loss or damages caused on account of demolition of the Petitioners' building is a question of assessment which can only be done before a Court wherein evidence can be led.”
The Way Forward: Civil Court Remedy Open
While dismissing the , the court granted the petitioners liberty to approach a competent civil court for claiming compensation for the loss suffered on account of demolition of that portion of the building which stood on their own land. The court also directed that the period from , till the date of the judgment be excluded while computing , ensuring that the petitioners are not .
Case Details:
- Case No.:
- Case Title:
- Judge: Justice Devashis Baruah
- Date of Judgment:
