Supreme Court Orders Return of Land After Unlawful Possession: B.K. Ravichandra vs. Union of India (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 925
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a government agency continue to occupy private land indefinitely after the legal basis for its possession has expired? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving land requisitioned decades ago. The Court held that the Union of India’s continued possession of land after the requisition period had ended was unlawful and ordered the land to be returned to its owners. This judgment underscores the importance of the rule of law and the protection of property rights, even against the state.

Case Background

The case revolves around land in Byppanahalli, Bangalore, which was originally owned by the predecessor of the appellants, B.M. Krishnamurthy. In 1963, the Union of India requisitioned the land under the Defence of India Act, 1962 (DIA). The land consisted of Survey Nos. 101/1 & 101/2 (2 acres 39 guntas) and Survey No. 104 (2 acre 8 guntas). Possession of the land was handed over under protest. Compensation was fixed in 1964 and approved in 1968.

The DIA lapsed in 1968, and the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Requisitioning Act) was amended to include properties requisitioned under the DIA. The Requisitioning Act was further amended in 1970, extending the period for which land could be requisitioned. In 1972, the landowner sought enhanced compensation, which led to arbitration proceedings.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legislation in this case is the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Key provisions include:

• Section 3: Empowers the Union to requisition properties for public purposes.
• Section 6: Deals with the release of requisitioned property. Initially, it provided for release after a certain period, which was extended by amendments.
• Section 7: Provides the procedure to requisition or acquire lands.
• Section 8: Specifies the principles for determining compensation for requisitioned property.
• Section 8(2): Lays out the principles applicable for determination of compensation for the property as a recurring one.
• Section 8(2A): Provides for revision of recurring payments.
• Section 25: Enacted in 1968, stating that properties requisitioned under the DIA were deemed to be requisitioned under the Requisitioning Act.

The Defence of India Act, 1962, was also initially relevant, but it lapsed in 1968. The Land Acquisition Act was also discussed in the context of acquisition of the suit lands.

The Supreme Court also considered Article 300A of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Union’s possession of the land was unlawful after the requisition period ended in 1987.
• They contended that the arbitrator’s findings on the extent of land acquired were final and binding.
• They relied on Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates that an award must be made within two years of declaration, failing which the proceedings lapse.
• The appellants emphasized that the right to property is a human right and cannot be taken away without due process of law.
• They argued that the compensation determined was up to the year 2000, and the value of the property has increased significantly since then.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The Union argued that the High Court correctly denied the claim for release of lands, as it was a matter for civil court.
• They contended that the findings on ownership were ambiguous and that the suit lands were acquired through notifications in 1941.
• The Union claimed that the properties were validly requisitioned and that the orders were never questioned.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to direct the Union of India to hand over possession of the suit lands to the appellants, despite holding that the Union’s claim of acquisition was untenable and that the requisition period had ended.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Special Military Estates Officer v. Munivenkataramiah and Anr. [1990 (1) SCR 4]: Addressed the issue of appeals against awards under the DIA.
• Union of India v B.M. Krishnamurthy [1995 (4) KarLJ 607]: A previous judgment in the same case, which remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
• Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. [2020 (2) SCC 569]: Emphasized that the right to property is a human right.
• State of Haryana v Mukesh Kumar [2013 (1) SCC 353]: Reiterated the importance of the right to property.
• Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 192]: Held that requisitioning is temporary and cannot be indefinite.
• Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P [(1997) 4 SCC 511]: Stated that continued possession after the requisition period is contrary to law.
• Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd v. State of U.P [(2011) 9 SCC 354]: Highlighted the importance of property rights.
• State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77]: Stated that a property owner’s rights cannot be deprived without a substantive law.
• K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1]: Interpreted Article 300A and held that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
• T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member [(2006) 8 SCC 502]: Observed that the right to construct a building is a valuable right and cannot be taken away without a clear provision.
• State of U.P. v. Manohar [(2005) 2 SCC 126]: Highlighted the importance of strict construction of regulatory laws.
• Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111]: Stated that the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher [2013 (5) SCC 627]: Highlighted the importance of strict construction of regulatory laws.
• Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 705]: Stated that the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation [(2017) 1 SCC 667]: Stated that the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• M.C. Mehta v Union of India [2020 SCC Online (SC) 658]: Stated that the landowners will be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• D.B. Basnett v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2020) 4 SCC 572]: Approved the findings that the lands were never acquired because the procedure was not followed.
• Director of Rationing and Distribution v. Corporation of Calcutta [(1961) 1 SCR 158]: Held that the State was not bound by the provisions of a state law.
• Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corpn. of Calcutta [(1967) 2 SCR 170]: Overruled the previous decision and held that the State is subject to the law.

Statutes/Provisions:

• Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952: The primary legislation governing the requisition and acquisition of immovable property.
• Defence of India Act, 1962: Under which the initial requisition was made.
• Land Acquisition Act: Discussed in the context of acquisition of the suit lands.
• Section 11A, Land Acquisition Act: Mandates that an award must be made within two years of declaration, failing which the proceedings lapse.
• Article 300A of the Constitution of India: States that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Special Military Estates Officer v. Munivenkataramiah and Anr. [1990 (1) SCR 4]*: The Court used this case to clarify that an award made under DIA was not appealable.
• Union of India v B.M. Krishnamurthy [1995 (4) KarLJ 607]*: The Court followed this judgment to understand the previous course of proceedings in the case.
• Vidya Devi v. State of H.P. [2020 (2) SCC 569]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the right to property is not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right.
• State of Haryana v Mukesh Kumar [2013 (1) SCC 353]*: The Court used this case to support the importance of the right to property.
• Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 192]*: The Court relied on this case to clarify that requisitioning is temporary and cannot be indefinite.
• Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P [(1997) 4 SCC 511]*: The Court followed this case to support its conclusion that continued possession after the requisition period is contrary to law.
• Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd v. State of U.P [(2011) 9 SCC 354]*: The Court cited this case to highlight the importance of property rights.
• State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77]*: The Court used this case to support the argument that a property owner’s rights cannot be deprived without a substantive law.
• K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1]*: The Court relied on this case to interpret Article 300A and emphasize that no person can be deprived of their property save by authority of law.
• T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member [(2006) 8 SCC 502]*: The Court used this case to support its conclusion that the right to construct a building is a valuable right and cannot be taken away without a clear provision.
• State of U.P. v. Manohar [(2005) 2 SCC 126]*: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of strict construction of regulatory laws.
• Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111]*: The Court cited this case to highlight that landowners cannot be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher [2013 (5) SCC 627]*: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of strict construction of regulatory laws.
• Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. [(2007) 8 SCC 705]*: The Court cited this case to highlight that landowners cannot be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• Ramchandra Ravindra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation [(2017) 1 SCC 667]*: The Court cited this case to highlight that landowners cannot be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• M.C. Mehta v Union of India [2020 SCC Online (SC) 658]*: The Court cited this case to highlight that landowners cannot be deprived of their right to use the property for an indefinite period without being paid compensation.
• D.B. Basnett v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2020) 4 SCC 572]*: The Court relied on this case to support its conclusion that the lands were never acquired because the procedure was not followed.
• Director of Rationing and Distribution v. Corporation of Calcutta [(1961) 1 SCR 158]*: The Court used this case to highlight the historical context of the State’s claim to be not bound by law.
• Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Corpn. of Calcutta [(1967) 2 SCR 170]*: The Court used this case to emphasize that the State is subject to the law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The Union’s continued possession of the land after the requisition period ended was a clear violation of the law.
• The Union repeatedly asserted that it had acquired at least some parts of the suit lands, but these claims were consistently rejected by the High Court and in arbitration proceedings.
• The Court emphasized that the right to property is a valuable constitutional right and cannot be taken away without due process of law.
• The Court noted that the Union had ample opportunity to acquire the land through proper legal channels but failed to do so.
• The Court highlighted the importance of the rule of law and the need to protect citizens’ rights against arbitrary actions by the state.

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The court emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the protection of property rights, even against the state. The court also considered the historical context of the case and the repeated failures of the Union to establish a legal basis for its possession of the land.

The Court rejected alternative interpretations that would have allowed the Union to continue its possession of the land. The Court emphasized that the Union’s possession was unlawful and that the appellants were entitled to the return of their property.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The requisition period had ended in 1987.
• The Union had failed to acquire the land through due process.
• The Union’s claims of acquisition were repeatedly rejected.
• The right to property is a valuable constitutional right.
• The rule of law must be upheld.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The legal effect of requisitioning immovable property, it goes without saying, 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.”
• “To permit the state: whether the Union or any state government to assert that it has an indefinite or overriding right to continue occupying one’s property (bereft of lawful sanction) – whatever be the pretext, is no less than condoning lawlessness.”
• “The courtsare bound to protect the citizens’ rights to property. The state’s action in the present case is a clear violation of the rule of law.”
• “The Union’s contention that the High Court was correct in declining relief to the appellants is without merit. The High Court fell into error in not granting the relief that the appellants were entitled to.”

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The Court ordered the following:

1. The Union of India is directed to hand over possession of the suit lands to the appellants within four months from the date of the judgment.
2. The Union of India is directed to pay compensation to the appellants for the period of unlawful possession, from 1987 until the date of handing over possession. The compensation should be determined by the arbitrator under the Requisitioning Act.
3. The Union is at liberty to initiate acquisition proceedings for the suit lands, if it so chooses.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for property law and the relationship between the state and its citizens:

• It reinforces the principle that the state cannot continue to occupy private land indefinitely without a legal basis.
• It underscores the importance of the rule of law and the protection of property rights, even against the state.
• It clarifies that requisitioning of land is a temporary measure and cannot be used as a means of permanent acquisition without following due process.
• It serves as a reminder to government agencies to adhere to the law when dealing with private property.
• It provides a precedent for similar cases where the state has unlawfully occupied private land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in B.K. Ravichandra vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that reaffirms the importance of property rights and the rule of law. The Court’s clear and unequivocal order for the return of the land and payment of compensation sends a strong message that the state cannot act arbitrarily when dealing with private property. This case serves as a crucial reminder that the right to property is a fundamental right that must be protected, and that the state is not above the law. The judgment will have a lasting impact on property law and the relationship between the state and its citizens in India.