New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that no one can be deprived of their property without being paid adequate compensation as the right to property is both a human and constitutional right, The Indian Express reported.
The court also held that in the event of inordinate delay in disbursement of compensation in exceptional circumstances, the date of fixing the valuation could be moved to a more recent one.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said in the judgment that ‘Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continues to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.’
The verdict came following an appeal regarding a case related to acquisition of land for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project in 2003.
The court’s decision came on an appeal against judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on November 22, 2022 that dismissed challenge to judgment of single judge of the HC’s regarding the acquisition of land as part of Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project in 2003.
Following a plea by some of the land owners who said they had not received compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Bengaluru chose to put off the date of Preliminary Notification for acquisition from January 29, 2003 to 2011, according to the report.
Subsequently, ordering the rates for that year, an amount of Rs 32,69,45,789 was awarded for 11 acre 1.25 guntas of land.
Later this was challenged in the HC and subsequently, a single-judge bench quashed the award alongside directing to pass fresh awards in accordance with the law.
The land owners moved the SC after the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against this.
Justice Gavai also said: “We do not find any error in the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in holding that the SLAO could not have shifted the date and it could have been done only by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 32/142 of the Constitution of India or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Single Judge of the High Court instead of relegating the appellants to again go through the rigors of determination by SLAO, ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice.”