Supreme Court Rules on Land Acquisition and Compensation: Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: April 6, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 378
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a state government avoid compensating landowners for land taken decades ago for public use, simply because the landowners delayed in claiming their rights? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a case where land was used for road construction in the 1970s without proper acquisition or compensation. The Court examined whether the state could use the defense of delay and laches to avoid its responsibility towards the landowners. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with Justice Bhat authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants, Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat Ram, claimed ownership of land in Himachal Pradesh. In 1972-73, the State used this land and adjoining areas to construct the ‘Narag Fagla Road’. However, the State did not initiate any land acquisition proceedings nor provide compensation to the appellants or other landowners. Following a High Court directive in a separate case, the State issued a notification for land acquisition in 2001, and an award was passed fixing compensation at ₹30,000 per bigha. Several neighboring landowners initiated proceedings for enhanced compensation, which were granted by the reference court in 2005. Subsequently, other similarly situated landowners also received benefits through writ proceedings.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition, citing a Full Bench decision that such matters involved disputed questions of law and fact, particularly regarding the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The High Court granted the appellants the liberty to file a civil suit. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 300-A of the Constitution of India: This article states that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” The Court emphasized that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional right, protecting individuals from deprivation of property without due legal process.
• The Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Court referred to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the issuance of notifications for land acquisition.

The Court noted that the right to property was a fundamental right at the time of the dispossession of the subject land, and the State is obligated to follow due process of law when acquiring private property.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The State illegally took their lands without following due process of law. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of U.P. v. Manohar [(2005) 2 SCC 126] and Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) [2012 (13) SCR 29].

• Their case is similar to that of neighboring landowners who received compensation and benefits. The State’s inaction is arbitrary, as the lands were used for the same purpose.

• The State did not dispute that the appellants owned the land, that it was taken for the road, and no compensation was paid. The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, citing Air India Ltd. v. Vishal Capoor [2005 Supp (3) SCR 670].

• They highlighted the judgment in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 2 SCC 569], which had similar facts and circumstances where the Supreme Court directed the State to pay compensation with all statutory benefits.

State’s Arguments:

• The petition was filed after an inordinate delay of 38 years and should be dismissed. They cited State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [1995 Supp (1) SCR 492], State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [1964 (6) SCR 261] and Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2014) 11 SCC 351].

• The decision in Tukaram Kana Joshi was per incuriam because it did not consider the larger bench decision in Digambar.

• The Narag Fagla road was constructed at the request of the appellants and other landowners, who volunteered their land with verbal consent.

• The lands in other writ proceedings were not adjoining to the subject land, and were acquired for a different road.

• Due to disputed questions of fact, the appropriate forum would be the civil court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the State can evade its responsibility to compensate landowners for land acquired without due process, citing delay and laches.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court cited Entick v. Carrington [1765] EWHC (KB) 198 and Wazir Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh [1955 (1) SCR 408] to emphasize the principle that no one can be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.
• The Court cited Bishandas v. State of Punjab [1962 (2) SCR 69] to highlight that executive action cannot be destructive of the rule of law.
• The Court cited State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh and Ors. [1989 (1) SCR 176] to underscore that the State cannot take possession of property extra-judicially.
• The Court cited Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant Regular Motor Service [1969 (1) SCR 808] to discuss the principles of delay and laches in equity.
• The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Manohar [(2005) 2 SCC 126] to support the view that the State cannot deprive a person of property without legal authority.
• The Court cited Air India Ltd. v. Vishal Capoor [2005 Supp (3) SCR 670] to emphasize the relevance of undisputed facts in writ jurisdiction.
• The Court cited Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [2005 Supp (3) SCR 388], N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy [(2008) 15 SCC 517], Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2011 (12) SCR 191] and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [1994 Supp (1) SCR 807] to highlight that forcible dispossession of property violates human and constitutional rights.
• The Court cited Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) [2012 (13) SCR 29] to reiterate that the State must follow due process for acquisition.
• The Court distinguished State of Maharashtra v. Digambar [1995 Supp (1) SCR 492], State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr v. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [1964 (6) SCR 261] and Brijesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2014) 11 SCC 351], stating that the facts of the present case did not warrant dismissal based on delay and laches.
• The Court followed Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 2 SCC 569], which had almost identical facts, and rejected the contention of ‘oral’ consent to be baseless.
• The Court cited P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152] for the principle that a constitutional court can exercise jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
• The Court cited State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [(2011) 10 SCC 404] to emphasize that the right to property is also a human right.
• The Court cited Shankar Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh [CWP No. 1966/2010 -C, judgment dated 02.03.2013] for the need for written consent in land acquisition matters.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Violation of Constitutional Rights: The Court emphasized that the State’s actions had violated the appellants’ constitutional rights under Article 300-A, which protects individuals from being deprived of their property without due process of law.
• State’s Lack of Due Process: The Court highlighted the State’s failure to follow the legal procedures for land acquisition. The State had taken possession of the land without initiating proper acquisition proceedings or providing compensation.
• Arbitrary Conduct: The Court noted that the State had selectively initiated acquisition proceedings only for those who had approached the courts, which was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory.
• Equity and Fairness: The Court stressed that the State cannot use delay and laches as a shield to avoid its legal responsibilities. The Court emphasized that there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice.
• Precedent: The Court relied on its previous decision in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had similar facts and circumstances.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the State’s arguments of verbal consent and delay. The Court emphasized that the State had a responsibility to act within the confines of legality and that the State’s actions had compounded the injustice meted out to the appellants.

The court concluded that the State’s actions were a continuing cause of action and that the State cannot use the defense of delay and laches to avoid its responsibility towards the landowners. The court also noted that the State’s selective approach in initiating acquisition proceedings was arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

• “It is the cardinal principle of the rule of law, that nobody can be deprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law.”
• “The State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation ; there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice.”
• “In a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State could not have deprived a citizen of their property without the sanction of law.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• The State cannot evade its responsibility to compensate landowners for land acquired without due process, simply by citing delay and laches.
• The right to property, though not a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A, protecting individuals from deprivation of property without legal authority.
• The State must follow due process of law when acquiring private property.
• Verbal consent is not sufficient for land acquisition; written consent is necessary.
• Courts can intervene in cases of injustice even if there is a delay, especially when fundamental rights are violated.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State to:

• Treat the subject lands as a deemed acquisition.
• Disburse compensation to the appellants in the same terms as the order of the reference court dated 04.10.2005.
• Ensure that the Land Acquisition Collector computes and disburses the compensation within four months.
• Provide consequential benefits of solatium and interest on all sums payable under law from 16.10.2001 until 12.09.2013.
• Pay legal costs and expenses of ₹50,000 to the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State cannot avoid its responsibility to compensate landowners for land acquired without following due process, by using the defense of delay and laches. This judgment reinforces the principle that the State must adhere to legal procedures when acquiring private property and cannot benefit from its own inaction or illegal actions. This decision reaffirms the importance of Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects individuals from being deprived of their property without due legal process. It also reinforces the principle that there is no limitation to doing justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the State had illegally dispossessed the appellants of their land without following due process. The Court directed the State to compensate the appellants as if the land had been acquired through proper legal procedures. This judgment underscores the importance of due process in land acquisition and the State’s responsibility to act within the confines of the law.