State cannot dispossess anyone of their land without due process of law, Supreme Court

Right to property continues to be a Human Right in a welfare State and a Constitutional right in India even though it has ceased to be a Fundamental Right, the Supreme Court reiterated on Wednesday. The State cannot dispossess a person of their property without due process of law, the Court added..In a judgment rendered by the Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, the Apex Court has reinforced the right to property as a Constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300 of the Constitution of India and stated that the right to fair compensation in case of acquisition can be inferred in the Article..The Court said that Article 300A of the Constitution upholds one's right to property as a Constitutional right and guarantees that no person can be dispossessed of the same, save by the authority of law. .The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article.Supreme Court in Vidaya Devi vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh.The Court made the observation while pulling up the State of Himachal Pradesh for dispossessing the Appellant in the case, who is now 80 years of age without paying her any compensation to her for the same. The Appellant, who is an illiterate widow, was dispossessed of her land as far back as in 1967-68. The State took over her property for the construction of a District Road, admittedly without following due procedure for land acquisition. It was the State's case that an oral consent for the takeover of land was given by the Appellant's predecessor. The construction of the road completed in 1975.In 2004, other similarly placed landowners had approached the courts seeking compensation from the State for the acquisition of their property and by way of court order, the State was directed to make the requisite payment. This order did not include the Appellant who was uninformed of these proceedings up until 2010. She moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking compensation or for the initiation of acquisition proceedings. In response, the State claimed "adverse possession" on the Appellant's property,The High Court held that the matter required determination of facts and questions concerning the period of limitation, and granted liberty to the Appellant to file a civil suit. Even in the Review sought by the Appellant, the High Court refused to alter its order, which brought the matter to the Supreme Court in appeal.The Apex Court, in turn, expressed shock at the State's argument presented before the High Court in relation to adverse possession. In this regard, the judgment says,.The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession...The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.Supreme Court.The Court further added that India being a "democratic polity governed by the rule of law", due process of law ought to be followed by the State without which a person cannot be dispossessed of their property.The Court proceeded to remind the Respondent State that while right to property stopped being a fundamental right in 1978, it still continues to be a Constitutional, statutory, as well as a human right.The Court also rejected State's argument regarding delay on part of the Appellant to move the Courts. The Court observed that this argument cannot be raised where the cause of action is continuing one or if the case shocks the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, the Court said. It added further that the same ought to be exercised reasonably and will depend on the facts owing to which the delay was caused, as well as the extent of violation of one's right. .There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justiceSupreme Court.Condoning the delay in the instant case, and calling it a compelling case for demand of justice, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 to direct the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay the Appellant for her land which was taken over by the State, admittedly without acquisition proceedings. Costs of Rs 1 lakh were also directed to be paid to the Appellant by the State..[Read the Judgment]