B. K. RAVICHANDRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 24-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
B. K. RAVICHANDRA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1460 of 2010)
NOVERMBER 24, 2020
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act,
1952:
Requisition under – Continuation of occupation of the Union
Government, even after lapse of the Act – Refusal to hand back the
possession – High Court by impugned order despite holding that
the Union claim has no merit, did not issue any direction to release
the lands in question – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Acquisition
under the Act is temporary – State’s occupation ceased to be lawful,
with the lapse of the Act in the year 1987 – Right to property though
not fundamental, is a valuable constitutional right ensuring
guaranteed freedoms and economic liberty – Court’s role is to act
as the guarantor and protector of the people’s liberties – It is not
open to the State to claim that the law or the Constitution can be
ignored or complied at its convenience – Permitting the State to
assert its indefinite or overriding right to continue occupying one’s
property, bereft of lawful sanction, would be condoning lawlessness
– The State is directed to hand back possession of the suit lands to
the appellants.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The legal effect of requisitioning immovable
property is that temporarily- i.e. for the period the requisition
order is in operation, the owner loses her possessory rights, even
though the title remains undisturbed. Since the deprivation of
possession is through authority of law, in keeping with fair
procedure, the law (in this case, the Requisitioning Act) provides
for payment of compensation in accordance with predetermined
principles. Yet, the taking of property by definition is finite: it
cannot result in expropriation or deprivation of title altogether,
unless another process for acquiring it, is initiated. [Para 18][989-
B-D]
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 974
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra (1994)
4 SCC 192 : [1994] 3 SCR 746 – followed.
Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P (1997) 4 SCC
511 : [1997] 1 SCR 1056 – relied on.
2. Although the right to property is not a fundamental right
protected under Part III of the Constitution of India, it remains a
valuable constitutional right. The decisions of this court, and the
history of the right to property show that though its pre-eminence
as a fundamental right has been undermined, nevertheless, the
essence of the rule of law protects it. The evolving jurisprudence
of this court also underlines that it is a valuable right ensuring
guaranteed freedoms and economic liberty. The phrasing of
Article 300-A is determinative and its resemblance with Articles
21 and 265 cannot be overlooked- they in effect, are a guarantee
of the supremacy of the rule of law, no less. [Paras 21 and 26][993-
B; 998-B-C]
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd v. State of U.P (2011) 9
SCC 354 : [2011] 12 SCR 191; State of Rajasthan v.
Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77 : [2005] 3 Suppl.
SCR 1; K. T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
(2011) 9 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR 636; T. Vijayalakshmi
v. Town Planning Member (2006) 8 SCC 502 : [2006]
7 Suppl. SCR 534; D. B. Basnett v. Land Acquisition
Officer (2020) 4 SCC 572; State of U.P. v. Manohar
(2005) 2 SCC 126 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 911;
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517;
Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai
Bhimaji Dawkher, (2013) 5 SCC 627 : [2013] 2 SCR
664 – relied on.
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial
Coke & Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 8 SCC 705 : [2007] 6
SCR 799; Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore
Municipal Corporation (2017) 1 SCC 667 : [2016] 9
SCR 373; M. C. Mehta v Union of India (2020) SCC
Online (SC) 658 – referred to.
B. K. RAVICHANDRA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
3. It is not open to the State: in any of its forms (Executive,
State Agencies or Legislature) to claim that the law – or the
Constitution can be ignored, or complied at its convenience.
[Para 26][998-B]
Superintendent Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v.
Corpn. of Calcutta [1967] 2 SCR 170 – relied on.
Director of Rationing and Distribution v. Corporation
of Calcutta [1961] 1 SCR 158 – stood overruled.
4. The Union asserted that it had acquired at least some
parts of the suit lands; these were examined by the High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.