SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1041 · Decided: 06-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1041
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1041
1041
SUKH DUTT RATRA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2773 of 2022)
APRIL 06, 2022
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 300-A – Right against
depriviation of property – Respondent state utilised subject land
and adjoining lands for the construction of road in 1972-73 –
Appellants claimed to be owners of subject land – Allegedly no
land acquisition proceedings were initiated nor compensation was
given to the appellants or the owners of the adjoining lands – Land
acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of neighbouring
land owners and award was passed on 04.10.2005 – Appellants
filed writ petition in 2011 before the High Court seeking
compensation for the subject land or initiation of acquisition
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act – High Court held that
the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for
determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not
be adjudicated in writ proceedings – In the instant appeals, question
that arose was can the State, merely on the ground of delay and
laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom
private property was expropriated – Held: The State cannot shield
itself behind the ground of delay and laches – There cannot be a
‘limitation’ to doing justice – The State has, in a clandestine and
arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation
as was required by law – This arbitrary action was also violative of
the appellant’s prevailing Art. 31 right – The State was unable to
produce any evidence indicating that the land of the appellants
was taken over in the manner known to law or have ever paid any
compensation – Appellants too were illegally dispossessed without
following due process of law – In the absence of written consent to
voluntarily give up their land, the appellants were entitled to
compensation in terms of law – Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction
under Arts.136 and 142 of the Constitution, the State is directed to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1042
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
treat the subject land as a deemed acquisition and appropriately
disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the
order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005 – State is also directed
to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants –
Land acquisition – Limitation – Delay and laches.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts of the present case reveal that the State
has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit
disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for
which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all
those who are entitled. This arbitrary action, which is also violative
of the appellants’ prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause
of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention
by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction. [Para
19][1051-C-E]
State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126 – referred
to.
2. The State has merely averred to the appellants’ alleged
verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any
material on record to substantiate this plea. Further, the State was
unable to produce any evidence indicating that the land of the
appellants had been taken over or acquired in the manner known
to law, or that they had ever paid any compensation. This was the
State’s position and subsequent findings of the High Court in 2007
as well, in the other writ proceedings. [Para 21][1052-F-H]
3. The State’s contention that since the property is not
adjoining to that of the appellants, it disentitles them from claiming
benefit on the ground of parity cannot be accepted. Despite it not
being adjoining (which is admitted in the rejoinder affidavit filed
by the appellants), it is clear that the subject land was acquired
for the same reason – construction of the Narag Fagla Road, in
1972-73, and much like the claimants before the reference court,
these appellants too were illegally dispossessed without following
due process of law thus resulting in violation of Article 31 and
warranting the High Court’s intervention under Article 226
jurisdiction. In the absence of written consent to voluntarily give
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
up their land, the appellants were entitled to compensation in
terms of law. The forcible dispossession of a person of their private
property without foll

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