[Land acquisition] Right to claim compensation is in-built in Article 300A: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that right to claim compensation for land acquired by the government is in-built in Article 300A of the Constitution [Kalyani (dead) through lrs and ors vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality]. .A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Dinesh Maheshwari referred to its Constitution Bench decision in KT Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka, which lays down two requirements to be fulfilled while depriving a person of his property - land acquired should be for public purpose and compensation should be paid."Requirement of public purpose is a pre-condition and right to claim compensation is also inbuilt in Article 300-A," the judgment noted.The Court emphasised that Article 300A of the Constitution clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law..The top court was hearing a plea challenging an order of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which had ruled against the appellants, all farmers, who were claiming compensation for their land acquired towards building/ widening a public bypass road.set aside a single-judge order that said the present appellants, all farmers, were entitled to compensation for their land acquired towards building a public bypass road. According to the appellants, they gave their land on the assurance of compensation but this was not followed. They then made various representations starting from the time construction was on but to no avail, which prompted them to move the High Court. The State authorities before the single-judge denied the appellant's contentions, saying that the land was given voluntarily and thus acquired. It pointed out that the appellants had moved the High Court four years after the road construction began. Relying on Article 300A, the single-judge noted that there was no material on record to show that the land was handed over voluntarily, and ordered the District Collector to disburse an adequate compensation amount. The Division Bench in appeal said that the burden was on the appellants to prove that they were given assurance of suitable compensation, which they failed to do. It thus set aside the single-judge decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. .The Supreme Court at the outset noted that there was no dispute that the appellants lost their land and were deprived of their right, title or interest over the land utilised. "The appellants are farmers and the land utilized is agricultural land. It was part of their livelihood. Depriving them of their part of their livelihood and also of their property without authority of law would be violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution," the Court said. Article 300A, even if not a fundamental right is a constitutional one, and the High Court had erred in shifting the burden to the appellants to prove their lack of voluntary surrender, the Bench observed. Taking note of the several representations made, the Supreme Court also ruled that it would be incorrect to say that there was 'substantial delay on part of the appellants in agitating for their rights'.Noting that there was nothing on record to show voluntary surrender, the top court stressed that the absence of a compensation scheme as was relied on by the Division Bench, is immaterial. On the Division Bench saying the farmers in question had sought compensation from the wrong authorities, the apex court opined that such a view was too technical. "The Division Bench also proceeded to note that the appellants were keen on changing their stand by initially claiming from the State and then from the Panchayat. This reasoning is also not tenable. The appellants are farmers. They cannot be treated as the persons conversant with intricacies of law. The Division Bench committed an error in commenting against the appellants and drawing an adverse inference. It took a view too technical, to deprive the appellants of their right to compensation."Given the mandate of Article 300A, depriving the appellants of compensation is in violation of the Constitution, the Court observed. "Construction/widening of road no doubt would be a public purpose but there being no justification for not paying compensation the action of the respondents would be arbitrary, unreasonable and clearly violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution," the Court said.Therefore, the appeals were allowed..[Read Judgment]