State Authorities Can't Act As 'Goons' By Dispossessing A Person From Their Property And Then Not Pay Any Compensation: Madhya Pradesh HC

While hearing a matter concerning possession of a land, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the State authorities cannot act as goons and dispossess any person from their property and then claim that they will not pay any compensation/rent/mesne profit to the "illegally dispossessed". In observing so, the court reaffirmed that no one can be deprived of their right to property which is not only a Constitutional right but also a human right, noting that in the present matter concerning the alleged dispossession of a woman from land owned by her, had been pending for 17 years from 2007, when the authorities had decided to acquire the land. A single judge bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “Although the right to claim compensation or obligation of State to pay compensation to a person, who is deprived of his property, is not expressly provided under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, but it is inbuilt in the Article and the State, who has acquired the private property for public purposes, cannot say that no compensation shall be paid. The statutory authorities are bound to pay adequate compensation for illegally dispossessing the petitioner from her private land.”"Thus, it is clear that no one can be deprived of her right to property which is not only a Constitutional one, but is also a human right. The State authorities cannot act as goons thereby dispossessing any person from his/her property and then claiming that they will not pay any compensation/rent/mesne profit to the illegally dispossessed person, specifically when they sat over the matter for 17 years, i.e. from 3/7/2007, when they themselves had decided that the land should be acquired. Thus, it is clear that the State authorities are not ready to respect the law of land and they are acting as per their own wishes," the court added. BackgroundA notification for acquisition of certain lands was issued but the land owned by the petitioner–Shashi Pandey was not included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Ultimately, the matter went to the District Court which in its December 26, 2001 award held that as the land belonging to the Pandey was not included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, therefore, it cannot be held that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired. Accordingly, it directed that if the land owner has been dispossessed, then the possession should be restored back.Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by order dated August 21, 2006 with a direction to the Collector, Jabalpur to take up the issue and take a decision on whether the State Government is inclined to acquire the land or not. It said that in case if it is decided that the land is not required by the State, then the State shall return the possession of the land to the petitioner in accordance with law and the petitioner shall be entitled for compensation under Section 48 of the Act. It was also held that if the State Govt. wants to retain the land, the Collector shall proceed with the matter and take all steps necessary for the acquisition of the land and the petitioner shall be entitled to get the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.Thereafter, Collector, Jabalpur in its July 3, 2007 held that since the possession of the land had already been taken and the same had been handed over to NHAI and construction of by-pass has also been completed, therefore, it would not be in public interest to return the land. A direction was also issued to take necessary action for acquisition of land.Even this order passed by the Collector, Jabalpur was not followed by his successor and in spite of the fact that 17 years had passed, neither the possession of the land was returned back to the petitioner nor it was acquired. The present petition had been pending since 2016 and here the N.H.A.I. has taken a specific stand that it came into picture in the year 2010 and the land in question is not required.Whether the Petitioner can be deprived of her property without following due process of law?While addressing the first issue, the court relied on Supreme Court's decision in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) wherein it was observed, “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 multifaceted dimension. The right to property is considered very much to be a part of such new dimension.”“Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There [is] no deprivation without [due] sanction of law....

State Authorities Can't Act As 'Goons' By Dispossessing A Person From Their Property And Then Not Pay Any Compensation: Madhya Pradesh HC

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

State Authorities Can't Act As 'Goons' By Dispossessing A Person From Their Property And Then Not Pay Any Compensation: Madhya Pradesh HC

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers