2012 (11) TMI 1234 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court mandates fair compensation for land acquisition, upholding constitutional principles

The Supreme Court rectified the deprivation of property without due process by directing the State to follow legal procedures for land acquisition and ... Appellants non-suited on the ground of delay and non-availability of records - acquisition proceedings - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Development Corporation) - The land in dispute admeasuring, was owned by the predecessors-in-interest of the Appellants. A very large chunk of land including the said land stood notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') on 6.6.1964 for the establishment of the industrial development. However, no subsequent proceedings were taken up thereafter, and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The predecessors-in-interest of the Appellants were not merely illiterate farmers, but were also absolutely unaware of their rights and hence too inarticulate to claim them. Thus, they could be persuaded by the officers of the Respondent authorities to hand over possession of the said land. Actual physical possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities and handed over to the Development Corporation in the year 1964 itself. HELD THAT:- The learned senior Counsel appearing for the State came forward with a welcome suggestion stating that in order to redress the grievances of the Appellants, the Respondent-authorities would notify the land in dispute u/s 4 of the Act within a period of 4 weeks from today. Section 6 declaration will be issued within a period of one week thereafter. As the Appellants have full notice and information with respect to the proceedings, publication in the newspapers either of the notification or of the declaration under the Act are dispensed with. Notice u/s 9 of the Act will be served within a period of 4 weeks after the publication of Section 6 declaration and award will be made within a period of three months thereafter. The deemed acquisition proceedings would thus, be concluded most expeditiously. Needless to say, the market value of the land in dispute will be assessed as it prevails on the date on which the Section 4 notification is published in the Official Gazette. Payment of compensation/award amount will be made to the claimants/persons-interested immediately thereafter, along with all statutory benefits. The Appellants shall be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available to them for further enhancement of compensation, if so desired. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Deprivation of property without due process.2. Delay and laches in seeking remedy.3. Discrimination and inequality in compensation.4. Violation of fundamental and human rights.5. Remedy and compensation for the appellants.Detailed Analysis:1. Deprivation of Property Without Due Process:The appellants were deprived of their land in 1964 without following the legal procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land was taken for the Ulhas Khore Project, but the acquisition proceedings lapsed, and the appellants were persuaded to hand over possession without compensation. The Supreme Court emphasized that deprivation of property must be in accordance with the law as per Article 300-A of the Constitution, which was not adhered to in this case.2. Delay and Laches in Seeking Remedy:The High Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition on the grounds of delay and non-availability of documents. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants had persistently pursued their case and that delay and laches are not absolute impediments to seeking justice. The Court highlighted that judicial discretion should consider the continuous cause of action and the compelling demand for justice, especially when the State's actions shock judicial conscience.3. Discrimination and Inequality in Compensation:The appellants were discriminated against as similarly situated persons received compensation in 1966, while the appellants did not. The Court observed that such discrimination breeds corruption and disrespect for governance. The State's failure to treat the appellants equally violated the doctrine of equality, a fundamental principle of the Constitution.4. Violation of Fundamental and Human Rights:The Court recognized the right to property as a constitutional, statutory, and human right. The State's actions violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that a welfare State must pay adequate compensation and rehabilitate those deprived of their property, failing which it forces individuals into destitution or anti-national activities.5. Remedy and Compensation for the Appellants:The Supreme Court directed the State to notify the land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act within four weeks and complete the acquisition proceedings expeditiously. The market value of the land would be assessed as of the notification date, and compensation would be paid along with all statutory benefits. The appellants were also entitled to pursue further enhancement of compensation through statutory remedies.Conclusion:The Supreme Court's judgment rectified the grave injustice done to the appellants by directing the State to follow the legal procedure for land acquisition and compensate the appellants adequately. The Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional principles, ensuring equality, and protecting fundamental and human rights. The appeal was disposed of with appreciation for the State's cooperative gesture in resolving the matter amicably.