TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Forceful dispossession of property without legal sanction violates fundamental rights, State must pay compensation</h1> <h3>Vidya Devi Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.</h3> Vidya Devi Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - (2020) 2 SCC 569 Issues:1. Unlawful taking over of land by the State without due process or compensation.2. Rights of the Appellant as a landowner in a case of forcible dispossession.3. Adverse possession claimed by the State over the land.4. Delay and laches raised by the State as a defense.5. Jurisdiction of the Court to grant compensation and redressal.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment deals with the case of an almost 80-year-old Appellant who was the undisputed owner of land taken over by the State for road construction without following due process in 1967-68. The Appellant, being unaware of her rights, did not seek compensation initially.2. The Appellant's right to property, a fundamental right at the time of dispossession, continued as a human and constitutional right. The State's claim of adverse possession due to long possession was rejected, emphasizing the need for legal sanction and compensation for dispossession.3. The State's argument of oral consent and delay/laches were dismissed. The Court highlighted the State's obligation to follow legal procedures for acquisition and compensation, protecting citizens' property rights as a human right.4. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution to direct the State to pay compensation to the Appellant, considering the continuing cause of action and the State's failure to initiate acquisition proceedings.5. The judgment ordered the State to pay compensation based on a previous case's terms within a specified period, allowing the Appellant to appeal within a deadline for timely consideration. Legal costs were also imposed on the State in favor of the Appellant.By analyzing the issues and the detailed judgment, it is evident that the Court upheld the Appellant's right to compensation and redressal, emphasizing the importance of legal procedures and protection of property rights even in cases of long-standing possession by the State.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
