LexTUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER versus M.I.D.C. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 29 TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THR. POWER OF ATIORNEY HOLDER v. M.l.D.C. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7780 of 2012) NOVEMBER 2, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B c Articles 21 and 300-A - Initiation of land acquisition proceedings notifying the land for acquisition - Acquisition proceedings lapsed - Still possession of the land taken by the Authority - No compensation granted to /and-owner- Writ 0 petition - Dismissed by High Court on the ground of delay and non-availability of certain documents - On appeal, held: Acquisition of property tantamounts to deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with law and cannot be done by way of executive fiat or order or E administrative caprice· - Right to property is not only a constitutional right, or fundamental right or a statutory right, but also a human right - Depriving the /and-owners of their immovable properties, was a clear violation of Article 21 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Article 14 - Acquisition of land - Benefit of acquisition given to some land-owners while refused to some - Held: Refusal to some land-owners to acquisition benefits is discriminatory - Land Acquisition. Delay!Laches - Acquisition of Land, without granting any compensation therefor - Writ petition - Dismissed on the ground of delayllaches by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court committed an error in dismissing the petition on the F G 29 H 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R. A ground of delay - Delay and /aches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion and not an absolute impediment - The court should exercise the discretion, when there is continuity of cause of action, or the situation shocks the judicial conscience and when no third party interest is involved B - The present case is not hit by the doctrine of delay and /aches as it is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action was continuous and the situation shocks the judicial conscience. The land of the predeces~or-in-interest of the C appellants was notified u/s. 4 of Land Acquisition Act in the year 1964 by the respondent-Authority, for a project for industrial development. The acquisition proceedings lapsed as no subsequent proceedings were taken up thereafter. However, the possession of the land was D taken by the State authorities and the land was handed over to Industrial Development Corporation. The predecessor-in-interest were not granted any compensation, while similarly situated persons were granted compensation. The appellants had been E pursuing the authorities for compensation. They were unable to get any compensation or any land in lieu of the acquired lands as per the beneficial schemes floated by the State Authorities. Therefore, the appellants filed writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition on the F ground of delay, and the non-availability of certain documents. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court. HELD: 1.1 The appellants were deprived of their G immovable property in 1964, when Article 31 of the Constitution was still intact and the right to property was a part of fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. Even after the Right to Property seized to be a Fundamental Right, taking possession of or H acquiring the property of a citizen most certainly TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & ORS. THR. POWER OF 31 ATIORNEY HOLDER v. M.l.D.C. tantamounts to deprivation and such deprivation can A take place only in accordance with the "law", as the said word has specifically been used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Such deprivation can be only by resorting to a procedure prescribed by a statute. The same cannot be done by way of executive fiat or order or B administration caprice. [Para 6) [40-A-C] Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, etc. etc. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 1995 SC 142 : 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 807 - relied on. 1.2 The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. Though, it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are considered to c be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, D the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment etc. Now however, human rights are gaining an even greater multi faceted dimension. The right to property is consider
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.