2024 (5) TMI 1552 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns dismissal of 1977 land acquisition compensation petition despite decades-long delay

Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another Versus State of Bihar and Others

SC allowed appeal against HC's dismissal of petition for delay in land acquisition compensation case from 1977. Court held that delay and laches cannot ... Dismissal of petition on the ground of delay - compliance with an obligation to provide just and fair compensation for the land acquired in 1977 - HELD THAT:- In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [2012 (11) TMI 1234 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that the State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. 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. As held by this court in Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [2020 (1) TMI 1691 - SUPREME COURT], 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. The condition of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. As held by this Court, it would 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. Conclusion - The High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to promote justice, rather than dismiss the petition on delay grounds. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay without addressing the substantive issue of compensation for land acquisition. Whether the State complied with its obligation to provide just and fair compensation for the land acquired in 1977. Whether the right to property, as a constitutional and human right, was violated by the State's failure to compensate the appellant.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Delay in Filing the Writ PetitionRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referred to the principle that delay and laches cannot be raised in cases of continuing violations or where circumstances shock the judicial conscience. The Court cited Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., emphasizing that delay is a matter of judicial discretion.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court criticized the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition solely on the ground of delay, noting that the appellant's right to compensation was a continuing cause of action. The Court emphasized that the demand for justice should not be defeated by procedural technicalities.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to promote justice, rather than dismiss the petition on delay grounds.2. Obligation to Provide Just and Fair CompensationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court cited several precedents, including K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, to affirm that the State has an obligation to provide reasonable compensation when exercising its power of eminent domain.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the State's failure to provide compensation for over four decades was unjust. It highlighted that the High Court did not inquire into why the State delayed in determining and disbursing compensation.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court observed that the High Court's order lacked clarity on how the compensation amount of Rs 4,68,099 was determined and criticized the non-speaking nature of the order.Conclusions: The Court found the High Court's approach unsatisfactory and emphasized that the State must comply with its obligation to provide fair compensation.3. Right to Property as a Constitutional and Human RightRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court referenced Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property, and cited cases like N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. to underline the importance of property rights.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reiterated that the right to property is a constitutional and human right, which cannot be arbitrarily deprived. It criticized the State's actions as inconsistent with the obligations under Article 300-A.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the appellant's right to property was violated by the State's failure to provide compensation, and the High Court failed to address this substantive issue.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for the High Court to address the substantive issues of compensation and the appellant's right to property. The Court stressed the importance of providing just and fair compensation and the obligation of the State to adhere to constitutional principles.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'We regret to state that the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not deem fit even to enquire with the State whether just and fair compensation was paid to the appellant or not.''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.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that procedural delays should not override substantive justice, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights. It also reaffirmed the State's obligation to provide fair compensation for property acquisition, recognizing the right to property as both a constitutional and human right.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to decide the matter within two months.