KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS versus THE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 26-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 849
849
KALYANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
THE SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3189 of 2022)
APRIL 26, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 300A–No person shall be deprived
of his property save by authority of law – Right to compensation to
the farmers for the land acquired – Held: Art. 300A clearly mandates
that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
of law–On facts, appellants are farmers – They gave their
agricultural land to Panchayat/Municipality for being utilized for
the construction of road, on assurance that they would be given
compensation, however the same was not given – Land was part of
their livelihood – Depriving them of their part of their livelihood
and also of their property without authority of law would be violative
of Art. 21 and Art. 300A –No authority of law under which the land
of the appellants-farmers was taken and they were deprived of the
same – If the Panchayat and the PWD failed to produce any evidence
that appellants have surrendered their lands voluntarily, depriving
the appellants of the property would be in violation of Art. 300-A–
Construction/widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose
but there being no justification for not paying compensation the
action of the Panchayat/Municipality would be arbitrary,
unreasonable and clearly violative of Art. 300-A–Thus, the
judgement of the Single Judge of the High Court that the appellants
would be entitled to compensation for the land utilized for the
construction/widening of the road is upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellants did lose their land in the
construction/widening of the road belonging to the Panchayat/
Municipality. The road as it existed and after further construction
and widening would be owned by the Panchayat/Municipality, that
is to say that the appellants would be deprived of their right, title
or interest over the land utilized for the said purpose. As such
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
the appellants have been deprived of their land in the said process.
The appellants are farmers and the land utilized is agricultural
land. It was part of their livelihood. Depriving them of their part
of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of
law would be violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the
Constitution. [Paras 9, 10][858-D-F]
1.2 Article 300A though not a fundamental right but
nevertheless it has status of being a constitutional or a statutory
right. It provides that no citizen would be deprived of his property
save without authority of law. Depriving somebody of his property,
where it is land, can be made by number of modes e.g. by
acquisition, surrender or by transfer and other facets also. In the
instant case, it being utilized for the road to be owned by the
Panchayat/Municipality, it could either have been voluntarily
surrendered, transferred by way of title deeds or by way of
acquisition as may be provided under the statute. [Para 11]
[858-G-H]
1.3 In the instant case, admittedly, there is neither any
acquisition proceedings nor any transfer of rights by the appellants
by way of sale, gift or otherwise. What is being alleged is that it
was a voluntarily surrender of rights for no consideration. This is
the stand taken by Panchayat/Municipality. If the Panchayat/
Municipality is taking this stand, the burden would be on the
Panchayat/Municipality to establish such voluntary surrender. A
memorandum or an agreement or a written document ought to
have been executed by the appellants stating their free will to
surrender for no consideration in favour of the Panchayat/
Municipality. The Single Judge clearly recorded that Panchayat/
Municipality as also the PWD failed to produce any such evidence.
Even the Division Bench did not find any material on record
produced by the Panchayat/Municipality or the PWD to the said
effect. However, the Division Bench proceeded on the premise
that the burden would lie on the appellants to establish that they
were given an assurance. It is the Panchayat/Municipality which
is the beneficiary. Burden should be on the Panchayat/Municipality
to prove that there was a voluntary surrender. The Division Bench
proceeded on a wrong premise on shifting the burden on the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
appellants. The assertion that it was surrendered voluntarily
without any claim for consideration is by the Panc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.