Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs.5 Lakh Cost On State For Harassing Widow By Illegally Acquiring Her Land In 1998

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.5 Lacs on the UP government for illegal acquisition of land of a widow in 1998. The cost was imposed on grounds that the widow has been harassed and made to run from pillar to post for getting compensation for the illegal possession of her land by State Public Works Department.While holding that no person can be dispossessed of his/ her land without due procedure, the bench comprising of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,“The petitioner, who is a widow, has not only been harassed and forced by the State Authorities to unnecessarily approach this Court in its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but during the proceedings, the approach of the State Authorities has been inhuman as would be evident from their stand that the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation because she had already been paid the market value of her plot. The cost of the writ petition is quantified as Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lacs).”Petitioner stated to own a Plot in Lakhanpur which was also reflected in the Khatauni. In 1998, State Public Works Department took possession of the aforesaid plots for construction of a bridge, statedly without acquiring the plots and without following procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other statute. Despite repeated representations, no compensation was paid to the petitioner. Petitioner had approached the Court for compensation, wherein the Court directed that the petitioner's representation for compensation be decided. Thereafter, various authorities passed orders that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, however, no compensation was awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Court again. The Court noted that when the case was taken up in the year 2008, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. who was personally present in the Court pleaded his inability to pay compensation to the petitioner because there was no sanction by the State Government. Thereafter, the compensation was calculated at Rs. 5,24,672/-. Out of which Rs. 2 Lacs was paid to petitioner during the course of the proceedings. It was again stated that for disbursement of the rest of the amount, State sanction is required. Subsequently, in the an another counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it was stated that Rs. 1,28,000/- was paid to the petitioner in 2009. While going through the calculation, the Court observed that “till date, the petitioner has been paid only Rs.3,28,000/- which is less than even the market value of the plots calculated on the basis of circle rate and shown in the calculation chart.”Before the bench headed by Justice Rai, it was pleaded by the petitioner that possession had been taken illegally without following any proper procedure of law violating petitioner's right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Further, it was pleaded that the petitioner was entitled to compensation at the market value of the plots in accordance with Section 23 of the Act, 1894.Per Contra, it was argued that by the State that the cost price of the land had been paid to the petitioner, accordingly, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Court observed that no area of the plot remained vacant and market value of the land had not been paid to the petitioner. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors., the Court held that “deprivation cannot be done by way of executive fiat or order or administrative caprice but can be only by resorting to procedure prescribed by the statute.” Further, reliance was placed on Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court had held “The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300- A of the Constitution. Article 300-A 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. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article.”The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation calculated in accordance with law and not only the cost price of the plots, i.e., its market value. Rejecting the stand of the State that the petitioner had already been paid the market value of the plot, the Court held that “the stand of the State smacks of arbitrariness and is not a stand expected from a democratic State governed by Rule of Law but resembles the conduct of criminals and land mafia who illegally grab the land of ordinary citizens of this country and then coerce the citizen to accept the price fixed by the land grabber.”Relying of the decision of ...

Allahabad High Court Imposes Rs.5 Lakh Cost On State For Harassing Widow By Illegally Acquiring Her Land In 1998

Upasna Agrawal

Tags