Journalism of Courage
Premium
No one can be deprived of property without adequate compensation: Supreme Court
The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act”.
4 min read
Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.The right to property is a human right and a constitutional right and no person can be deprived of his or her property without being paid adequate compensation, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday while also holding that in exceptional circumstances of inordinate delay in disbursement of compensation, the date of fixing the valuation can be shifted to a more recent one.
“Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continues to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law,” a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said in its judgement. The decision came on an appeal against the November 22, 2022 judgement of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the challenge to the judgement of a single judge of the HC on the question of acquisition of land for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project in 2003.
On a plea by some of the land owners who said they had not been given compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Bengaluru, by order dated April 22, 2019, decided to postpone the date of Preliminary Notification for acquisition from January 29, 2003 to 2011 and accordingly ordered the rates for that year. An amount of Rs 32,69,45,789 was awarded for 11 acre 1.25 guntas of land.
The project proponents challenged this before the HC and a single-judge bench quashed the award and directed that fresh awards be passed in accordance with the law. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal against this following which the land owners moved the SC.
Writing for the SC bench, Justice Gavai said: “We do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in holding that the SLAO could not have shifted the date and it could have been done only by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 32/142 of the Constitution of India or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Single Judge of the High Court instead of relegating the appellants to again go through the rigors of determination by SLAO, ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice.” The SC accordingly said “it is a fit case…” for exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution to “direct shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the appellants”.
The court said that “if the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery”.
The SC directed the SLAO to “determine the compensation to be awarded to the appellants herein on the basis of the market value prevailing as on 22nd April 2019. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available to them under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act”.
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Live Blog
Top Stories
Advertisement