In a Land Acquisition matter, the High Court vide its impugned
Judgment rejected the claim of the Appellants for any compensation due to them
for the land taken by the Respondent authorities, without resorting to any
procedure prescribed by law. The land in dispute was owned by the
predecessors-in-interest of the Appellants. A very large chunk of land
including the said land stood notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 ('Act') for the establishment of a project for industrial
development. No subsequent proceedings were taken up thereafter, and the
acquisition proceedings lapsed. The Predecessors-in-interest of the Appellants
being illiterate farmers were absolutely unaware of their rights and hence too
inarticulate to claim them. The actual physical possession of the said land was
taken by the State authorities and handed over to the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation ('Development Corporation') in the year 1964 itself.
Similarly situated persons who were also deprived of their rights in a
similar manner were granted compensation. The Respondent authorities realising
that grave injustice had been done to the Appellants, in respect of the land in
dispute, issued a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, no
further proceedings under the Act were initiated. The Appellants had been
pursuing the authorities persuading them to complete the deemed acquisition
proceedings, but despite their efforts, even a declaration under Section 6 of
the Act was not issued , later the Development Corporation, under the
instructions of the Government of Maharashtra handed over the possession of the
said land to the City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra
('CIDCO'). Appellants were unable to get any compensation for the said
land or even for that matter, any land in lieu of the lands so taken, in spite
of their best efforts made in this regard. As the Appellants were unable
to get any relief from any authority, though they were continuously pursuing
their remedies by approaching the Special Land Acquisition Officer, as well as
the Revenue Authorities of the State, without any success whatsoever and
eventually moved before the High Court. The High Court dismissed their plea
only on the grounds of delay, and the non-availability of certain documents.
Consequently an appeal was filed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed, the Appellants were deprived of their
immovable property in 1964, when Article 31 of the Constitution was still
intact and the right to property was a part of fundamental rights under Article
19 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that even after the Right to
Property seized to be a Fundamental Right, taking possession of or acquiring
the property of a citizen most certainly tantamount to deprivation and such
deprivation can take place only in accordance with the "law", as the
said word has specifically been used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Such
deprivation can be only by resorting to a procedure prescribed by a statute.
The same cannot be done by way of executive fiat or order or administration
caprice.
The right to property is now considered to be, not only a
constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. Though, it is not
a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are
considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health,
the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment etc. Now however,
human rights are gaining an even greater multi faceted dimension. The right to
property is considered, very much to be a part of such new dimension.
In the case at hand, there has been no acquisition. The question
that emerges for consideration is whether, in a democratic body polity, which
is supposedly governed by the Rule of Law, the State should be allowed to
deprive a citizen of his property, without adhering to the law.
Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down
that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his
fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the
Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether.
Functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the
Appellants without any sanction of law.
The State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the
Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by
the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and
laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction
to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise
judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and
circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny
exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be
mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if whole thing
shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion
more so, when no third party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition
is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a
constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the
situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.
The High Court committed an error in holding the Appellants
non-suited on the ground of delay and non-availability of records, as the court
failed to appreciate that the Appellants had been pursuing their case
persistently. Accepting their claim, the statutory authorities had even
initiated the acquisition proceedings in 1981, which subsequently lapsed for
want of further action on the part of those authorities. The claimants are
illiterate and inarticulate persons, who have been deprived of their
fundamental rights by the State, without it resorting to any procedure
prescribed by law, without the court realising that the enrichment of a welfare
State, or of its instrumentalities, at the cost of poor farmers is not
permissible, particularly when done at the behest of the State itself. The
Appellants belonged to a class which did not have any other vocation or any
business/calling to fall back upon, for the purpose of earning their livelihood.
Depriving the Appellants of their immovable properties was a clear
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory
authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also
a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non-fulfillment
of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to
become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments
would be born in them on account of such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not
permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his
fundamental/constitutional/human rights, under the garb of industrial
development.
The findings of the High Court, that requisite records were not
available, or that the Appellants approached the authorities at a belated stage
are contrary to the evidence available on record and thus, cannot be accepted
and excused as it remains a slur on the system of governance and justice alike,
and an anathema to the doctrine of equality, which is the soul of our
Constitution. Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal
obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition
proceedings at the earliest, and to make payment of requisite compensation. The
appeals etc. are required to be decided expeditiously, for the sole reason
that, if a person is not paid compensation in time, he will be unable to
purchase any land or other immovable property, for the amount of compensation
that is likely to be paid to him at a belated stage.
In order to redress the grievances of the Appellants, the
Respondent-authorities would notify the land in dispute Under Section 4 of the
Act within a period of 4 weeks from today. Section 6 declaration will be issued
within a period of one week thereafter. As the Appellants have full notice and
information with respect to the proceedings, publication in the newspapers
either of the notification or of the declaration under the Act is dispensed
with. Notice under Section 9 of the Act will be served within a period of 4
weeks after the publication of Section 6 declaration and award will be made
within a period of three months thereafter. The deemed acquisition proceedings
would thus, be concluded most expeditiously. Needless to say, the market value
of the land in dispute will be assessed as it prevails on the date on which the
Section 4 notification is published in the Official Gazette. Payment of compensation/award
amount will be made to the claimants/persons-interested immediately thereafter,
along with all statutory benefits. The Appellants shall be entitled to pursue
the statutory remedies available to them for further enhancement of
compensation, if so desired
- Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder vs
M.I.D.C. and Ors. (AIR2013SC565)
Related Articles:
Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth & Associates
