2004 (12) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court orders compensation for unlawful land taking, sets 3-month deadline for payment

State of U.P. & Ors. Versus Manohar

The High Court granted a writ of Mandamus in favor of the respondent, directing the State to pay compensation for the land taken without due process. The ... Whether the appellants were unable to produce even a scrap of evidence indicating that the land of the respondent had been taken over or acquired in any manner known to law or that he had ever been paid any compensation in respect of such acquisition? Whether at the case projected before the Court by the appellants is utterly untenable and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard to being a welfare State? Issues:- Writ petition seeking Mandamus for compensation determination- Dispossession without compensation- High Court's direction for compensation payment- Lack of evidence of land acquisition or compensation payment- Constitutional rights violation- Exemplary costs impositionWrit petition seeking Mandamus for compensation determination:The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to determine compensation for his land taken away without following the due process of law. The respondent claimed that the land was forcibly taken by the State without any compensation being paid and that despite repeated appeals, no compensation was forthcoming. The High Court accepted the respondent's case and directed the State to pay compensation within 3 months with appropriate interest.Dispossession without compensation:The respondent's grievance was that he was dispossessed from his land, his name was deleted from the revenue records, and no compensation was paid. The appellants failed to provide any evidence of acquisition or compensation payment. The Court found the appellants' case untenable and emphasized the State's obligation to promptly pay compensation to the respondent. The lack of legal authority for the deprivation of the respondent's property was highlighted, leading to the High Court's intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.High Court's direction for compensation payment:The High Court directed the State to pay compensation to the respondent within 3 months with interest, rejecting the appellant's arguments that compensation had already been paid but records were unavailable. The Court dismissed the appellant's contentions due to the absence of evidence supporting the claim of compensation payment.Lack of evidence of land acquisition or compensation payment:The appellants failed to produce any evidence of the land acquisition or compensation payment to the respondent. The Court noted that the land was constructed upon, indicating that the respondent had not been compensated for the acquisition. The State's refusal to acknowledge its mistake and pay compensation promptly was criticized, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and imposition of exemplary costs.Constitutional rights violation:The Court emphasized the constitutional rights of citizens regarding property, highlighting Article 300A which prohibits deprivation of property without the authority of law. The lack of legal authority for the deprivation of the respondent's property by the State authorities was deemed a violation of constitutional principles, warranting the High Court's intervention.Exemplary costs imposition:The appeal was dismissed, and exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed on the appellants. The compensation directed by the High Court, along with the costs, was ordered to be paid within 3 months. The appellants were personally charged with ensuring compliance, failing which they would be answerable in contempt jurisdiction. The Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh was to be informed for necessary action.