9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khasra No. 70 in Tika Jalari Bhaddirain, Mauja Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, Dist. Hamipur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. The Respondent-State took over the land of the Appellant in 1967-68 for the construction of a major District Road being the Nadaun - Sujanpur Road, a major District Road without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings, or following due process of law. The construction of the road was completed by 1975. 3. The Appellant, being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the State. 4. In 2004, some similarly situated persons whose lands had also been taken over by the Respondent- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available to the Appellant was by filing a Civil Suit. The State has further admitted that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued in 2008 with respect to the land of Anakh Singh a neighbouring land-owner, whose land was similarly taken over for the same purpose. Furthermore, the Writ Petition was barred by laches, since the road was constructed in 1967-68, and metalled since 1975. The land was utilized by the Respondent-State after the Appellant and her predecessorsininterest had verbally consented to the land being taken over without any objection. 7. The High Court vide the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2013 held that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article. K T Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627. , wherein this Court held that: " 6. ... Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of "eminent domain" may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation." (emphasis supplied) 10.3. In this case, the Appellant could not have been forcibly dispossessed of her property without any legal sanction, and without following due process of law, and depriving her payment of just compensation, being a fundamental right on the date of forcible dispossession in 1967. 10.4. The contention of the State that the Appellant or her predecessors had "orally" consente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case. 10.7. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The Appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law. We exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
