A Person Can’t Be Deprived Of His Own Property Without Him Being Paid Adequate Compensation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal preferred against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench by which it dismissed the Writ Appeal against the Judgment of a Single Judge.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan elucidated, “… the appellants had purchased the plots in question for construction of residential houses. Not only have they not been able to construct, but they have also not been even paid any compensation for the same. As discussed hereinabove, though Right to Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional right. A person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same.”
The Bench noted that Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continues to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
AOR R. Chandrachud appeared for the Appellants while Senior Advocate Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Avishkar Singhvi, and AOR Purushottam Sharma Tripathi appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background -
From 1995 to 1997, the Appellants purchased various residential sites vide registered Sale Deeds and became absolute owners of their respective sites. A Framework Agreement (FWA) was executed between State Government and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE), envisaging the Infrastructure Corridor Project connecting Bengaluru-Mysuru (Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project or BMICP). As per the FWA, the State Government undertook to acquire about 13,237 acres of land from private persons and about 6,956 acres of Government land. In all 20,193 acres of land was agreed to be conveyed and transferred in favour of NICE for implementation of the BMICP. In 1998, NICE applied to Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to make available the lands for the project. In 2003, a preliminary notification was issued by KIADB under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for acquiring lands for the BMICP. Notices were issued under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of KIAD Act seeking objections from the land-owners. Thereafter, the possession of the Appellants’ land was taken over by KIADB and subsequently handed over to NICE and its sister concern NECE, however, no Award was passed immediately for such acquisitions.
Pursuantly, the land owners filed Writ Petitions before the High Court seeking quashment of acquisition notifications. The Court held that the acquisition notifications cannot be quashed at such a belated stage and that there cannot be any direction for allotment of alternative sites to the land-owners. On non-consideration of their representation, the landowners filed Writ Petitions before the High Court and the Single Judge directed the State to consider their representation. Alleging non-compliance of the Order of the Single Judge, Contempt Petitions were filed by land-owners and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an Award for payment of compensation in respect of lands belonging to erstwhile land owners. A compliance report along with an endorsement was filed in the contempt proceedings before the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed as withdrawn the Contempt Petitions. The Award was challenged before the High Court and the Single allowed the Writ Petitions. Thereafter, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal of the Appellants and hence, they approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “Article 300-A of the Constitution 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 Court was of the view that the Appellants were required to knock at the doors of the Courts on number of occasions during the period of last twenty-two years and have been deprived of their property without paying any compensation for the same in the said period of last twenty-two years.
“In the present case, it can clearly be seen that there is no delay which can be attributed to the appellants in not getting compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of the officers of the State/KIADB that the appellants were deprived of compensation”, it added.
The Court said that it is a fit case wherein the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution should direct shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the Appellants.
“If the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery”, it further remarked.
The Court observed that though SLAO had no power to shift the date for determination of market value, he had rightly done so.
“If on account of the inordinate delay in paying the compensation and thereby depriving the constitutional right to the appellants under Article 300-A, the land acquisition proceedings are quashed, the only recourse available to the State/KIADB in order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh acquisition notification by invoking the provisions as applicable under the 2013 LA Act which would entail huge expenditure to the public exchequer”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Civil Appeal and quashed the impugned Judgment.
Cause Title- Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 3)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR R. Chandrachud and Advocate Dhuli Ventaka Krishna.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, AAG Avishkar Singhvi, AORs V.N. Raghupathy, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, Supreeta Patil, Jyotish Pandey, S.S. Rebello, Deepti Arya, Arzu Paul, Vidur Nair, S.J. Amith, Vani Vyas, and Prakhar Singh.
