Allahabad HC Warns Of 'Heavy Penalty' On Officers Responsible For Utilizing Citizens' Lands Without Following Due Procedure For Acquisition
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned the State Authorities against using land of private citizens without acquiring the same through proper procedure prescribed in law, stating that in case of any default heavy penalty will be imposed on the officers responsible for the same.Though in the case before it the Court refrained from imposing cost, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and...
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned the State Authorities against using land of private citizens without acquiring the same through proper procedure prescribed in law, stating that in case of any default heavy penalty will be imposed on the officers responsible for the same.
Though in the case before it the Court refrained from imposing cost, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed,
“The State Authorities are required to be cautious that they should not utilize the land of the citizens without due authority of law or without following the proper procedure of acquisition, else the authorities, who may be found responsible for such utilization of land without due procedure of law shall be held responsible personally and the court will have to impose heavy penalty for such actions on the part of the Authorities, which shall be recovered from their personal account.”
Petitioner purchased a piece of land in District Bareilly. At the time of purchase, the revenue record reflected the chak road which was to the South of the petitioner's plot. Subsequently, the road was widened a portion of petitioner's land was taken for the same without awarding her any compensation.
Upon RTI inquiry, petitioner was informed that there was no record for any acquisition proceedings for petitioner's land. Despite repeated representations to the Authority for compensation, petitioner received no response. Thereafter, she approached the High Court wherein her writ petition was disposed of with a direction to “the District Magistrate- Bareilly to refer the matter to the District Level Committee in terms of the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, for determination of entitlement of compensation of the petitioner herein.”
The District Level Committee rejected petitioner's claim stating that initially the chak road was 3 mtrs wide and extra 2.5 mtrs was available on both sides, therefore by widening the road 1.25 mtrs, no individual right of the tenure holder had been infringed. Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court observed that initial chak road was developed by the Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department around 20 years back without any acquisition and it was subsequently widened by the PWD by taking away certain portion of petitioner's land without proper acquisition process.
Perusing the Tehsildar report, the Court held that the Constitution of India granted a right to property under Article 300A and prohibited deprivation of property without following due procedure of law.
“The land of a person cannot be acquired without payment of due compensation in accordance with law. There is no concept of implied consent for utilizing the land of a citizen without following the due procedure and without payment of compensation. The property of a citizen can be acquired for public purpose on payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with law.”
The Court relied on Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, N. Padmamma vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat and Vidya Devi v. State of H.P, where the Apex Court observed that no person can be deprived of his right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution without sanction of law.
The Court held that right to property being a Constitutional Right instead of a Fundamental Right was at par with human rights and a person could not be deprived of the right over his property without following due procedure in law. It held that any person whose land is being utilized without sanction of law is entitled to compensation.
Noting that the petitioner ran pillar to post to determine how her land was acquired by the PWD, the Court held that she was entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Disapproving the action of the State Authorities, the Court directed the District Level Committee to determine the compensation of the land of the petitioner taken for road widening and pay the same within a period of four weeks alongwith interest as provided in the said Act.
Case Title: Kanyawati vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 81 [WRIT - C No. - 27598 of 2020]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 81