CASE BRIEF
Chameli Singh vs State Of U.P
Appellants- Chameli Singh
Respondents- State Of U.P
Decided On: 15.12.1995
STATUES REFERRED-
1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 5A, Section 17(4), Section 4(1).
2. The Constitution of India 1949- Article 21
FACTS OF THE CASE-
1. The appellants were the owners of the lands in Plot No. 16 along with other lands.
2. The land was acquired for the housing needs of Dalits, Tribes and poor.
3. They were notified by publication in the State Gazette under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23-7-1983 and the declaration under Section 6 was also published simultaneously dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A.
4. There was a delay in respect of both pre-notification and post- notification on the part of the officials to finalize and publish the notification.
5. Therefore, the appellants challenged the validity of the notification and appealed to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.
ISSUES-
Whether the order passed violates Article 21 of the constitution of India?
CONTENTIONS BY THE PARTIES
Appellants Arguments
1. It was contended that since the lands are not waste or arable lands, notification under Section 17(4) would be invalid.
2. The appellants further contended that dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A is not justifiable as there is no urgency to take possession even though the land was acquired for providing houses to Scheduled Castes.
3. The appellants also contended that in all the acquisitions for housing purpose conducting an inquiry under Section 5-A should be the rule and dispensing with such inquiry should be exceptional and only in rare cases like those covered by Section 17(2).
4. It was finally argued by the appellants that Acquisition of the land deprives the owner of his source of livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution which cannot be deprived by denuding the owner of the means of livelihood, viz., the land by resorting to compulsory acquisition.
Respondents Arguments
1. The respondents agreed that there was a pre and post notification delay on the part of the officers to finalize and publish the notification, but the respondents argued before the court that as stated by this court- Larger the delay, greater be the urgency and therefore if the needs of the people are met the action taken was justified.
2. Further, the respondents argued that The State would be expending money to relieve the deplorable housing condition in which they live by providing decent housing accommodation with better sanitary conditions and that the lethargy on the part of the officers for pre and post-notification delay would not render the exercise of the power to invoke urgency clause invalid on that account.
3. They further contended that The State exercised its power of eminent domain for public purpose and acquired the land and therefore the notification was legal.
JUDGEMENT
The apex court bench comprising of K. RAMASWAMY & FAIZAN UDDIN & B.N. KIRPAL held the following-
1. The Supreme Court held that so long as the unhygienic conditions and housing needs of Dalits, Tribes and the poor are not solved, the urgency continues to subsist and the Government, on the basis of material, constitutional and international obligations, having formed its opinion of urgency, the Court, not being an appellate forum, would not disturb the findings unless the court conclusively finds the exercise of the power mala fide which in this case it does not.
2. It was held that right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. Right to shelter includes an adequate living place, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc.
so as to provide easy access to daily avocations. To bring the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life, providing these facilities and opportunities to them was held to be the duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and constitutional rights.
3. Therefore, the Supreme Court unequivocally asserted in its verdict: “Right to shelter when used as an essential requisite to the right to live, should be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental right.
RULE OF LAW
The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble apex court of India was Right to live and Right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
CONCLUSION
In Conclusion, it could be said that in this case the Supreme Court through its judgement has laid down the importance of Right to live and Right to shelter as a fundamental right and in any case if an action is taken in accordance with the fundamental right then such a case the action would not be said to be violative of its fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.