Right to Property remains a Human Right in a welfare State and a Constitutional Right under Article. 300A of the Constitution: SC

Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 15th January 2020

Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 60-61 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 467-468/2020 @D..No.36919/2018)

Matter

The Appellant, almost 80 years old, was undisputedly the owner of a particular land. The Respondent-State took over the said land in 1967-68 for construction of a major District road without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. Eventually, the construction of the Road was completed by 1975 without following the due process of law.

The Appellant, being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law.  She did not file any suit claiming compensation for the land taken over compulsorily by the State. In 2004, a person whose land had been similarly taken over by the Respondent for the same purpose filed a suit titled Anakh Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. claiming compensation before the HC of Himachal Pradesh.  The HC directed the Respondent- State to acquire the lands of the Petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, the State initiated the acquisition proceedings only with respect to the lands of the Petitioners, and not the other land-owners whose lands had also been taken over.

Appeal before SC

The Appellant came to know about these proceedings in 2010 and subsequently filed a suit before the HC praying that the State be directed to pay compensation for the land acquired in 1967-68; or, in the alternative, direct the State to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondent-State filed its reply before the HC, wherein it admitted that the Department had used the land in ownership of the Appellant for the construction of a major District road in 1967-68. Since, the State had been in continuous possession of the property for the last 42 years, it would tantamount to ‘adverse possession’.  It was submitted that the statutory remedy available to the Appellant was filing a Civil Suit.

Furthermore, the State had issued a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in 2008 with respect to the land of Anakh Singh (a neighbouring land owner whose land was similarly taken over by the State for the same purpose). The Writ Petition was barred by latches, since the road was constructed in 1967-68, and metalled since 1975. The land was utilized by the Respondent–State after the Appellant   and   her   predecessors­in­interest   had   verbally consented to the land being taken over without any objection. The HC held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in Writ proceedings. The Appellant was allowed to file a Civil Suit. Hence, the Appellant filed a Review Petition before the SC challenging the judgement passed by the HC in the Writ Petition.

Held

The Court observed that the Appellant was forcible expropriated of her property in 1967, when the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 31 in Part III of the Constitution.  The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. However, it continued to remain a human right in a welfare State and a Constitutional right under Art. 300A of the Constitution. According to these provisions of law, the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property save by procedure established by law. Hence, it can be inferred from Art 300A, the State is obliged to pay compensation while acquiring the property of a person for a public purpose. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, wherein the Court held reasonable compensation must be paid recognising the right to property as a basic human right.

The contention of the State that the Appellant or her predecessors had orally consented to the acquisition was found baseless. The Court held that there was lack of authority and legal sanction in compulsorily divesting the Appellant of her property without paying any compensation whatsoever. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. wherein it was 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 secure itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution. The State cannot take the plea of ‘adverse possession’ which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.

The contention advanced by the State of delay and latches was also rejected by the Court. The Court held that delay and latches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. In the present case, where the demand for justice was so compelling, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction (under Art 136 and 142 of the Constitution) with a view to promote justice and directed the State to pay compensation to the Appellant.