DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 6 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 13-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 714 : 2024 INSC 415
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another 
v. 
State of Bihar and Others
(Civil Appeal No 6351 of 2024)
13 May 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
A land owned by the appellant was acquired and he did not receive 
any compensation for the same. Before the Division Bench of the 
High Court, the appellant was informed that value of land was Rs. 
4,68,099/-. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the 
Letters Patent Appeal by asking the appellant to file an appropriate 
application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the 
value of the land. Whether the High Court committed any error in 
passing the impugned order.
Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In 
the year 1977, a land owned by appellant was acquired  – 
Compensation was not paid – The Single Judge of the 
High Court rejected the writ petition on the count that the 
petition had been filed after a period of forty-two years of the 
acquisition – However, the Division Bench of the High Court 
asked the appellant to file an appropriate application before 
the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the 
land assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- – Correctness:
Held: The High Court in its impugned order has stated that the 
appellant herein has been informed about the value of the land 
assessed at Rs 4,68,099 – There is no reason as to on what basis 
this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time this amount 
came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment of such 
amount – The High Court should have enquired with the State as 
to why in the year 1977 itself, that is the year in which the land 
came to be acquired, the award for compensation was not passed 
– The High Court did not enquire why it took forty-two years for 
the State to determine the figure of Rs 4,68,099 – The High Court 
should also have asked the State the basis of the determination 
of the amount towards compensation – It is a well settled position 
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 
715
Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others
of law that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the 
owner of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even 
file an appeal for the enhancement of the same – The High Court 
proceeded on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been 
assessed and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate 
application and get the amount disbursed in his favour – The 
approach adopted by the High Court is not convincing – The State 
cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance 
with the procedure established by law – The obligation to pay 
compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A of 
the Constitution, can be inferred in that Article – The Single Judge 
of the High Court rejected the writ petition only on the ground of 
delay – It is settled that 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 – In a case where the demand 
for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise 
its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it – In 
the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court 
is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
consideration. [Paras 13, 14, 18, 25, 26, 29]
Case Law Cited
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [2005] 
Supp. 3 SCR 388 : (2005) 7 SCC 627; N. Padmamma v. S. 
Ramakrishna Reddy [2008] 9 SCR 535 : (2008) 15 SCC 517; 
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2011] 12 SCR 
191 : (2011) 9 SCC 354; Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of 
Gujarat [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 807 : (1995) Supp 1 SCC 596; 
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [2012] 13 SCR 29 : (2013) 1 SCC 
353 – relied on.
K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2011] 13 SCR 
636 : (2011) 9 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [2011] 
14 SCR 211 : (2011) 10 SCC 404; Vidya Devi v. The State of 
Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC 569; 
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [1975] 2 SCR 356 : (1975) 
1 SCC 152 – referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of India.
716
[2024] 6 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Acquisition of land; Payment of compensation; Assessment 
of the value of land; Delay in filing petition; Determination of 
compensation; Dispossession fro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.