2020 (1) TMI 1691 - SC - Indian Laws

Forceful dispossession of property without legal sanction violates fundamental rights, State must pay compensation

Vidya Devi Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

SC held that forceful dispossession of property without legal sanction violates fundamental rights. The State's claim of oral consent for acquisition was ... Right to property - forceful dispossession of property without any legal sanction - contention of the State that the Appellant or her predecessors had “orally” consented to the acquisition is completely baseless - HELD THAT:- This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [2011 (9) TMI 1182 - SUPREME COURT] held that the right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi­faceted dimension. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. In the present case, the Appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The Appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. The Respondent–State is directed to pay the compensation on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court alongwith all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. An Affidavit of compliance is directed to be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks - The Respondent­State is directed to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs.1,00,0000/­ to the present appellant. Appeal allowed. 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.