Supreme Court Upholds Right to Compensation for Land Used in Road Construction: Kalyani vs. Sulthan Bathery Municipality (2022)

Date of the Judgment: April 26, 2022. Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 3189 of 2022. Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath. Can a municipality use private land for road construction without paying compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, emphasizing the constitutional right to property. This case revolves around the principle that no person shall be deprived of their property without the authority of law. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants owned 1.7078 hectares of land within the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat, which later became a Municipality. The Panchayat requested the appellants to allow the use of their land for the construction/widening of the Sulthan Batheri Bypass Road, assuring them adequate compensation. The road was built, but the appellants received no payment. Despite several representations to the authorities, their requests were ignored, leading them to file a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala in 2014.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 2329 of 2014) in the High Court of Kerala. The Single Judge ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that they were entitled to compensation for their land. The Panchayat appealed this decision, and the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s ruling, stating that the appellants had failed to prove they were promised compensation. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 300A of the Constitution of India: “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” This article ensures that no one can be dispossessed of their property without legal justification.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants contended that the Panchayat had assured them of adequate compensation when they requested the use of their land for road construction.
• They argued that they did not voluntarily surrender their land without any expectation of payment.
• They highlighted that the Panchayat and PWD failed to produce any document showing voluntary surrender.
• They emphasized that they had consistently sought compensation since the road construction began, as evidenced by their representations and legal notices.

Respondents’ (Panchayat/Municipality) Submissions:

• The Panchayat argued that the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land without any claim for compensation.
• They claimed that no assurance of compensation was ever given to the appellants.
• They asserted that the appellants’ claim was delayed and an afterthought.
• They stated that there was no provision for road development by giving price of the land acquired.

Respondents’ (PWD) Submissions:

• The PWD stated that the Panchayat had handed over the land for road construction and that they were informed the land was surrendered free of cost.
• They denied encroaching on the appellants’ land and stated they were only assigned the work of construction.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land to the Panchayat free of cost without raising any claim for compensation.

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 submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on K.T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka [(2011) 9 SCC 1] to reinforce the principle that the right to claim compensation is inherent in Article 300A of the Constitution, and the State must justify both the public purpose and the compensation when depriving a person of their property.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the constitutional mandate of Article 300A, which protects individuals from being deprived of their property without legal authority. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rested on the Panchayat/Municipality to demonstrate that the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land without any expectation of compensation. The lack of any documentary evidence from the Panchayat/Municipality to support their claim of voluntary surrender weighed heavily against them. The Court also noted that the appellants had consistently sought compensation since the road construction began, which further undermined the claim of voluntary surrender. The Court also considered the fact that the appellants were farmers, and the land was part of their livelihood, further strengthening their claim for compensation.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Single Judge. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation for their land. The Court emphasized that the Panchayat/Municipality had failed to provide any evidence to support their claim that the appellants had voluntarily surrendered their land without any expectation of compensation. The Court stated that “Article 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law” and that in this case, there was no legal basis for depriving the appellants of their land without compensation. The Court also noted that “the consistent stand of the appellants, on the other hand, has been that they have not given their land to the Panchayat voluntarily and that they were assured that they would be suitably compensated”. The Court further stated that “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and legal authority.
• The burden of proof lies on the authority claiming voluntary surrender of land without compensation.
• Article 300A of the Constitution guarantees the right to compensation when property is taken for public use.
• Public authorities must maintain proper documentation when acquiring land for public projects.
• Farmers and other landowners are entitled to compensation when their land is used for public purposes.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, directing the District Collector, Wayanad, to determine the market value of the land taken from the appellants. The Municipality was then directed to disburse the determined amount to the appellants. The appellants were also given the liberty to approach the civil court if they were not satisfied with the compensation amount.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State or any public authority cannot deprive a person of their property without following due process and paying adequate compensation. This judgment reinforces the constitutional right to property under Article 300A and clarifies that the burden of proof lies on the authority claiming voluntary surrender of land. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces it and clarifies its application in the context of land acquisition for public projects.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kalyani vs. Sulthan Bathery Municipality reaffirms the constitutional right to property and ensures that landowners are justly compensated when their land is used for public projects. This case highlights the importance of proper documentation and due process in land acquisition and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes.