Disha Agarwal | ICFAI Hyderabad | 12th June 2020
Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh
Facts:
Appellant (Vidya Devi) who is 80 yrs old and a widow, is undisputedly the owner of the land in question. The land was forcefully taken away by the Respondent (State) without following due process of law for the construction of a major district road – Nadaun-Sujanpur in 1967-1968. The construction of the road was completed by 1975. In 2004, a similar CWP was filed titled “Anakh Singh & Ors. v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors” claiming compensation before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court directed the Respondent (State) to initiate the proceedings of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, Respondent initiated proceedings in 2008. Appellant became aware of such proceedings in 2010 and filed CWP before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. High Court stated that the case involves question of fact regarding the limitation period which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. A review petition was filed by the Appellant against the order of High Court which was dismissed. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging both the orders passed by the High Court.
Issues:
- Whether the Appellant is barred by limitation period to file the suit and if so, should the suit be entertained in the Court of law.
- Whether the Appellant is entitled to any remedy under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
Appellant’s contentions:
The Appellant contended that they were forcibly dispossessed of the land at the time when Right to property was a fundamental right in 1967. Though after the amendment in 1978, it ceased to be a fundamental right but still continued to be a statutory, constitutional, human right[1]. Article 300-A of the constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law”. Therefore, stating that if a person is deprived of his property due process of law should be followed. The State has an obligation to perform the procedure established by the law i.e reasonable compensation should be provided[2]. The provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution must be strictly construed.[3]
Respondent’s contentions:
The State submitted that firstly the Appellant had orally consented for the acquisition. Secondly, since the state is in possession of the property for more than 42 years it would amount to adverse possession. Thirdly, the suit is barred by laches and delay as the limitation period had expired long back in 1975.
Judgment:
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and awarded compensation along with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. that should be paid within a period of 8 weeks, treating it a case of deemed acquisition. The Court stated the following:
- The State cannot take the defence of adverse possession and thereby seize the property of its citizens. State has an obligation to ensure the welfare of its citizens. Therefore, the state should not be allowed to invoke the doctrine of adverse possession.
- The Court clarified that the present case has a continuing cause of action since the time when the Appellant was forcibly dispossessed from her land without following due process of law, depriving her payment of reasonable compensation. The State must comply with the procedure for acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode[4].
- With respect to delay and laches, the Court considered that she is an illiterate woman and a widow who did not know about her rights. The Hon’ble Court also held that in the present case where the demand for justice is so compelling that the State itself has accepted that it did not initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and the Appellant have been deprived of her right to just compensation for as long as 42 years, the Court invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 & 142 to do substantial justice.
- Condonation of delay was granted as it is a matter of judicial discretion, tantamounting to the extra-ordinary circumstances of injustice the Appellant had to face.
Conclusion:
This case is a classic example that substantial justice is of paramount importance. The Apex court has reinforced right to property as a constitutional right provided under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The Court has done everything in its power to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 wherein the Supreme Court has power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment and Article 142, exercising inherent power in compelling matters to do substantial justice. The Court has also set aside the bar of limitation to enforce justice. It is also important to note that State should not be allowed to take advantage of the power vested with them and should ensure welfare of its citizens.
[1] N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517
[2] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627
[3] N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517
[4] Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors (2013) 1 SCC 353
Leave a Reply