Sakunjay Vyas
Published on: April 7, 2022 at 08:35 IST
The Two Judge Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the Supreme Court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla bench, disposing of appellant’s writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A, this court allowed the appeal.
The Two Judge Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha was hearing an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla bench, disposing of appellant’s writ petition, with liberty to institute a civil suit in accordance with the law.
The issue in the hands of the Apex Court was can the State, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated?
The apex court stated that the facts of the present case reveal that the State has, in a clandestine and arbitrary manner, actively tried to limit disbursal of compensation as required by law, only to those for which it was specifically prodded by the courts, rather than to all those who are entitled.
These actions of the state are in violation of Article 31 right (at the time of the cause of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction.
The Apex Court stated that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right since it would have been available to the appellant if the writ was filed at the time of occurrence of the event, it is applicable here too.
“ the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in Part III of the Constitution,” the Court said.
The Apex Court stated that the State cannot shield itself behind the ground of delay and laches in such a situation; there cannot be a ‘limitation’ to doing justice.
That the State has merely asserted that the appellants provided verbal consent or that they did not object to the procedure, but it has not submitted any evidence to support this assertion.
“This court finds that the contentions raised by the State, do not inspire confidence and deserve to be rejected. The State has merely averred to the appellants’ alleged verbal consent or the lack of objection, but has not placed any material on record to substantiate this plea.” The Court said.
The Apex Court further stated that this court is also not moved by the State’s contention that since the property is not adjoining to that of the appellants, it disentitles them from claiming benefit on the ground of parity. Despite it not being adjoining the appellants are entitled to compensation in terms of the law.
As a result, the Apex court overturned the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla bench by stating that the forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right and constitutional right under Article 300-A.