Supreme Court imposes ₹50,000 costs on Himachal Pradesh for violation of rights during land acquisition

The Supreme Court recently imposed legal costs and expenses of ₹50,000 on the State of Himachal Pradesh for disregarding the rights of certain persons during land acquisition which forced the affected parties to move court for remedies after decades of dispossession from their lands [Sukh Datt Ratra and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.]..A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha placed reliance on its 2020 judgment in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh to hold that if the State authorities forcibly dispossess any person without following the due process of law, then it is a violation of their constitutional and human rights under Article 300A."When it comes to the subject of private property, this court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State," the Court held..The appellants' land was taken by the respondent for construction of a road, but no land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State. Certain neighbouring land owners, except the appellants, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2001 for initiation of land acquisition proceedings.The High Court allowed the plea and ordered initiation of land acquisition proceedings. The proceedings were concluded and fixed compensation was paid to only those land owners who approached the High Court. The compensation was enhanced as well in appeal. Thereafter, similarly-situated landowners approached the High Court for initiation of land acquisition proceedings, which was allowed by the High Court.In 2011, the appellants approached the High Court seeking compensation for acquisition of their land and initiation of proceedings. The High Court rejected the writ petition of the appellants stating that "the matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on the starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings." The appellants were given the liberty to file a civil suit in accordance with law. Hence, the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. .The top court noted that at the time when appellants' land was taken by the State, the right to property was still a fundamental right under the Constitution prior to the 44th Amendment of the Constitution in 1978. "While 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 Bench held that the State cannot merely on the ground of delay and laches get away from its legal responsibility of compensating individuals from whom private property has been taken away. "The question remains – can the State, merely on the ground of delay and laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated? In these facts and circumstances, we find this conclusion to be unacceptable, and warranting intervention on the grounds of equity and fairness," the Court said..The failure of the State to compensate the appellants even after the order of the High Court in 1991 to compensate other landowners was wrong and arbitrary, the judgment noted. "The State’s lackadaisical conduct is discernible from this action of initiating acquisition proceedings selectively, only in respect to the lands of those writ petitioners who had approached the court in earlier proceedings, and not other land owners," the Bench opined.The Court also said that the State failed to show evidence that the lands of the appellants were taken in a manner known to law, or whether any compensation was paid to them."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. This arbitrary action, which is also violative of the appellants’ prevailing Article 31 right (at the time of cause of action), undoubtedly warranted consideration, and intervention by the High Court, under its Article 226 jurisdiction," the judgment noted.."There cannot be a 'limitation' to doing justice," the top court held while stating that the State cannot protect itself from giving compensation to the land owners in the light of delays and laches on their part. .The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the State was directed to compute the compensation and disburse the same to the appellants within four months, along with consequential benefits of solatium and interest on all sums payable under law from 2001 to 2013. .Advocate Mahesh Thakur appeared for the appellants. Advocate Abhinav Mukerji appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]