Tanya Gupta
Published on: March 13, 2022 at 18:50 IST
In the Case of Heera Singh Pangtey and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court Dismissed the Plea Challenging Land Acquisition for Defence purposes Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘The Act’), which proposed to Acquire certain land near the “Line of Actual Control” for meeting the Purposes of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, leading Single Bench stated,
“I am of the View that the Defence purposes of the Country Acquire the Driver’s Seat, and would be predominantly overriding all the Restrictive Intentions of the Act of 2013, since being contrary to the Constitutional Intention, for Protection of Individual Rights or even for a Right of a Class of Society, because this Court is of the view that no Individual Rights or even for that matter even Public Rights, can be at any moment be taken to be the Superior Rights, than to the Right of Defence of the Country, because of which, we all Citizens are thriving peacefully, because our Frontiers areas of the Country, are in the safe hands of our Gallant Army and Para Military Personnel.”
That is what has been even intended by the Preamble of the Constitution of India.”
Brief facts
Petitioner living in Uttarakhand at height of approx. 12,000 feet, Neighbouring Border challenged Land Acquisition by Para Military for Defence purposes.
Petitioner asserted that since he belongs to Scheduled Tribe his land is Protected by Constitution. Furthermore, a 30 Days Period was not provided to him after the Publication of Acquisition Notice which is Mandatory under Section 21 of the Act.
Court’s Verdict
The Court referred to Laxman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 3 SCC 764, in which it was held that Inquiry into Land Acquisition for Public Use has to be the deserving one and in Need of Urgency.
In this case, Court stated that there is no Blanket Immunity to the Owner of Land in the Case of Land Acquisition.
Court further Rejected the Contention that Petitioner’s Rights as a Scheduled Tribe are Violated.
It was thus concluded that since the land was Acquired for Defence Purposes it cannot be Compromised under any set of Rules that may be provided in any Statute. The need to Defence trumps the Rights of Individuals and may even Public Rights.
Accordingly, the Petition was Dismissed.