2000 (3) TMI 1111 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds ruling on government demolition case, awards damages to respondents.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision in a case involving the government's demolition of structures without due process. Damages were ... Rule of law - due procedure of law - illegality of forcible eviction and demolition - damages and costs for illegal dispossession - eviction under Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 - opportunity to revive pending applicationIllegality of forcible eviction and demolition - due procedure of law - damages and costs for illegal dispossession - High Court correctly held that forcible ejection and demolition of structures without following the prescribed legal procedure was impermissible and awarded relief to the dispossessed parties. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the High Court's conclusion that even the State cannot take law into its own hands and must follow the due procedure prescribed by law before dispossessing persons in occupation. The respondents' possession of the land and construction of khokhas was admitted; in that factual matrix the correctness of title need not be adjudicated to conclude that summary ejectment and demolition without recourse to statutory process violated the rule of law. The High Court's award of damages and costs as compensation for the illegal dispossession was therefore sustained as a legitimate exercise of remedial jurisdiction. [Paras 1, 2]The finding that forcible eviction and demolition without following due procedure was illegal is maintained and the relief granted by the High Court is affirmed.Eviction under Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 - proof of title not necessary where possession is admitted - Absence of material on title did not preclude the High Court from granting relief based on admitted possession and unlawful summary eviction. - HELD THAT: - The appellants contended that, in the absence of evidence as to title, the High Court ought not to have granted relief. The Court rejected that contention, noting that the respondents' possession was admitted and the determinative legal question was whether the State had followed the statutory and constitutional requirement of due process before dispossession. Since the State had effected summary ejectment and demolition during pendency of statutory proceedings, the High Court was entitled to grant relief notwithstanding unresolved title disputes. [Paras 1]The High Court did not err in granting relief despite absence of title evidence because the admitted possession and illegal summary ejectment warranted protection.Opportunity to revive pending application - protection of statutory remedies - The High Court appropriately protected the appellants' statutory interest by permitting revival or fresh filing of their earlier application notwithstanding the order for relief to respondents. - HELD THAT: - While condemning the summary action of the State, the High Court simultaneously safeguarded the appellants' procedural rights by providing an opportunity to revive their earlier application or to file a fresh one; withdrawal of the earlier application would not preclude such revival. The Supreme Court found no fault with this protective approach and preserved that aspect of the High Court's order. [Paras 1, 2]The High Court's provision permitting revival or refiling of the appellants' statutory application is affirmed.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's finding that summary ejectment and demolition without following due procedure was illegal and affirming the award of damages and costs, while leaving intact the High Court's direction permitting revival or refiling of the appellants' statutory application. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order in a case where the government demolished structures without following due procedure, awarding damages to the respondents and dismissing the appeals.