Supreme Court Upholds Right to Property: Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)

Date of the Judgment: January 08, 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 12

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a State government take over a citizen’s land without following the due process of law and without paying compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving an elderly widow whose land was taken by the State of Himachal Pradesh decades ago. The court reaffirmed that the right to property, though not a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right, emphasizing that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of their property without legal sanction and fair compensation. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi.

Case Background

The appellant, Vidya Devi, owned approximately 3.34 hectares of land in Himachal Pradesh. In 1967-68, the State of Himachal Pradesh took over her land to construct the Nadaun-Sujanpur road, a major district road, without initiating any acquisition proceedings or following due process. The road construction was completed by 1975. Vidya Devi, being an illiterate widow from a rural background, was unaware of her legal rights and did not pursue any claim for compensation.

In 2004, other landowners whose lands had been similarly taken filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, seeking compensation. The High Court ordered the State to acquire the lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the State initiated acquisition proceedings only for the lands of those writ petitioners, excluding others like Vidya Devi.

Vidya Devi learned about these developments in 2010 and filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking compensation or, alternatively, a direction to the State to initiate acquisition proceedings. The State admitted to using her land for road construction in 1967-68 but argued that they had been in continuous possession for 42 years, thus gaining title by “adverse possession.” The State also claimed that the petition was barred by laches and that the appellant had verbally consented to the land being taken.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Vidya Devi’s writ petition, stating that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact regarding the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The High Court granted her the liberty to file a civil suit. A review petition against this order was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, Vidya Devi appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the legal framework surrounding the right to property. Initially, the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution, which guaranteed that no person could be deprived of their property without due process of law and just compensation. Although the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights, it was still recognized as a human right and a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. Article 300A states that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law. The Court noted that the obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly mentioned in Article 300A, can be inferred from it.

The Court also cited several judgments to support its position:

• The State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 92: This case established the fundamental right to private property under Article 31.

• Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 353: This case emphasized that the right to property remains a human right in a welfare state.

• K T Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1: This case highlighted that the obligation to pay compensation can be inferred from Article 300A.

• Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627: The Court reiterated that the State’s power of eminent domain must be exercised for a public purpose with reasonable compensation.

• N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517: This case held that the right to property cannot be taken away except in accordance with the law, and provisions seeking to divest such right must be strictly construed.

• Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 354: The Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right and an indispensable safeguard against tyranny.

• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596: This case clarified that Article 300A limits the State’s power, ensuring no deprivation of property without legal sanction.

• State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar: The Court held that the right to property is not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The State forcibly took her land in 1967-68 without following any legal procedure or paying compensation, which was a violation of her fundamental right to property at that time.
• Even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional and human right, and the State cannot dispossess a citizen without due process.
• The State’s claim of adverse possession is not valid as the State cannot use this doctrine to grab citizens’ property.
• The delay in approaching the court should be condoned as the cause of action is a continuing one, and the circumstances shock the judicial conscience.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State admitted that the land was used for road construction in 1967-68.
• The State claimed that it had been in continuous possession of the land for 42 years, thus gaining title by adverse possession.
• The State argued that the appellant’s petition was barred by laches, as the road was constructed in 1967-68 and metalled in 1975.
• The State contended that the appellant and her predecessors had verbally consented to the land being taken over without any objection.
• The statutory remedy available to the Appellant was by filing a Civil Suit.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the State could dispossess the appellant of her property without due process of law and without paying 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 Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. [ (2013) 1 SCC 353]* to emphasize that the right to property remains a human right and that the State must follow due process for acquisition. The Court also cited Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [(2005) 7 SCC 627]* to reiterate that the State’s power of eminent domain must be exercised for a public purpose with reasonable compensation. The Court used Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat [(1995) Supp. 1 SCC 596]* to clarify that Article 300A limits the State’s power, ensuring no deprivation of property without legal sanction. The Court also cited P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152]* to state that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens against arbitrary actions by the State. The Court was particularly concerned with the fact that the State had forcibly taken the appellant’s land without following any legal procedure or paying compensation. The Court emphasized that the right to property, though not a fundamental right, is still a constitutional and human right that must be protected. The Court also expressed its disapproval of the State’s attempt to claim adverse possession over the land, stating that a welfare state cannot resort to such tactics to grab citizens’ property. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant was an illiterate widow from a rural area, who was unaware of her legal rights.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations, with a focus on constitutional and human rights principles. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal framework played a more significant role in the final decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected the State’s arguments of adverse possession and delay, emphasizing that the State cannot perfect its title over land by invoking adverse possession and that delay cannot be raised in cases of continuing cause of action. The Court also rejected the High Court’s view that the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact that could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. The Court held that the State’s actions were a clear violation of the appellant’s rights and that the State was obligated to pay compensation.

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

• The State forcibly dispossessed the appellant of her property without following due process of law, violating her fundamental rights at the time of dispossession.
• The right to property, though not a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right, and the State cannot dispossess a citizen without legal sanction and fair compensation.
• The State cannot claim adverse possession to perfect its title over the land.
• The delay in approaching the court is condonable as the cause of action is a continuing one.
• The State, being a welfare state, must act in accordance with the rule of law and cannot take arbitrary actions.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution.”
• “The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years.”
• “In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The State cannot dispossess a citizen of their property without following due process of law and paying just compensation.
• The right to property, though not a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right.
• The State cannot claim adverse possession to grab citizens’ property.
• Delay and laches cannot be raised in cases of continuing cause of action.
• Constitutional courts have the power to exercise their jurisdiction to promote justice and protect citizens’ rights.

The judgment reinforces the importance of the rule of law and the protection of citizens’ rights against arbitrary actions by the State. It emphasizes that the State must act in accordance with the law and cannot take advantage of its position to dispossess citizens of their property.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay compensation to the appellant on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court in Anakh Singh’s case, along with all statutory benefits, within 8 weeks. The Court also directed the State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant. The Court also stated that if the appellant files an appeal within 8 weeks from the date of compensation, it would be treated within limitation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of their property without following due process of law and paying just compensation. This case also clarifies that the State cannot claim adverse possession to grab citizens’ property and that delay and laches cannot be raised in cases of continuing cause of action. The judgment reinforces the position that the right to property, though not a fundamental right, remains a constitutional and human right. This case does not change the previous positions of law, but rather reinforces the existing legal principles and applies them to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh is a significant reaffirmation of the protection of property rights. The Court held that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of their property without due process of law and just compensation. The Court also rejected the State’s claims of adverse possession and delay, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law and the protection of citizens’ rights against arbitrary state actions. This judgment serves as a reminder that the State must act in accordance with the law and cannot take advantage of its position to deprive citizens of their property.