Heavy Penalty To Be Imposed On Authorities For Utilization Of Land Without Due Procedure of Law; Same To Be Recovered From Their Personal Account: Allahabad High Court

The Petition before the Allahabad High Court was filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the District Level Committee rejecting her land compensation plea.

Disapproaving the action of the Authorities in not following the due procedure, the Division Bench comprising Justice Anish Kumar Gupta and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta said, “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.”

Advocate Rajendra Prasad Tiwari represented the Petitioner, while C.S.C. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the land, which she had purchased by way of a sale deed from one Fate Singh. Her name was mutated in the revenue records as Bhumidhar, with transferable rights. On the south of the aforesaid plot was a chak road. As per the revenue records, the width of the said road was two and a half metre (8.25 feet), and the road was already constructed thereon. Subsequent thereto, the widening of the road was done, in which, according to the petitioner, her land, to the extent of 0.033 hectare, was utilized by the PWD without payment of any compensation.

She claimed that as per the revenue record, the width of chak marg was only 2.5 metre, and the additional land which had been utilized for the construction of the road and widening of the road was bhumidhari land. She didn’t receive a response regarding her request for compensation, and thus she filed a Writ Petition. The same 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 for determination of entitlement of compensation of the petitioner herein. However, the petitioner’s claim was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, she approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the aforesaid affected land of the petitioner had been utilized by the PWD without there being any acquisition and without payment of compensation to the petitioner herein. It was also admitted that the petitioner or her predecessors in interest had never consented for the utilization of the road.

“The Right to Property is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Thus, no person can be deprived of his property without 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 Bench said.

Referring to various pronouncements, the Bench said, “Thus, from the aforesaid judgements it is apparent that Right to Property though, is not a Fundamental Right but a Constitutional Right, which has been recognized at par with the human rights, which are inalienable. Thus, no person can be deprived of his property except in accordance with law and in case where the land of a citizen has been acquired by the State Authorities without proper acquisition, the same amounts to an action without Authority of law. Thus, a person whose property has been utilized without authority of law, is entitled for due compensation in accordance with the provisions of law applicable on the date of such utilization of the property by the State.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was the owner of the property in question as she had purchased the land in the year 2009. From the records, it was apparent that the petitioner was running from pillar to post to know the procedure of how she had been deprived of the property in question. “Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, which is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”, the Bench said.

“In view thereof, we remit back the matter to the District Level Committee to determine the compensation with regard to the land of the petitioner to the extent of 0.033 hectares, which was utilized without acquisition while widening the road in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The compensation so determined shall be paid to the petitioner by respondent no.4 within a period of four weeks alongwith interest as provided in the said Act”, the Bench held.

The Bench allowed the petition and asserted, “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.”

Cause Title: Kanyawati v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:29933-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vimlesh Kumar

Respondent: C.S.C.

Click here to read/download Order