Rajasthan HC Protects Private Land Owners From JDA's Demolition Drive Amid Court Vacation, Cites "7 Sub-Rights" Under Article 300-A
Rajasthan High Court has granted protection to the private land owners by preventing the Jaipur Development Authority (“JDA”) from demolishing their properties as a part of an encroachment removal drive till the time their matter is considered by a regular bench after vacation.
Vacation bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain was hearing a petition in relation to an order passed by a division bench of the Court. The order had directed JDA to identify and remove all encroachment over public road from Mansarovar Metro Station to Sanganer Flyover within three months from the date of the order.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that initially acquired lands by the government for the purpose of development under the Land Acquisition act were de-acquired and a notification was issued to that effect. However, pursuant to suo-moto cognizance taken by the Court, the government withdrew that notification. This withdrawal of notification was challenged by the petitioners. It was contended by the counsel that pending this challenge before the Court, all of a sudden, the JDA started removing construction on private land owned by the petitioners under the garb of directions of the Court.
After hearing the contentions and perusing the material placed on record, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v Bimal Kumar Shah wherein 7 sub-rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution were recognized.
Article 300-A of the Constitution provides for right to property and the 7 sub-rights recognized in the Case were: 1) Right to Notice; 2) Right to be Heard; 3) Right to Reasoned decision; 4) Duty to Acquire only for public purpose; 5) Right to restitution or fair compensation; 6) Right to an efficient and expeditious process; and 7) Right of Conclusion.
The Court observed that these sub-rights marked the real intent of right to property and their non-compliance amounted to violation of the right.
In the background of these rights, the Court highlighted that no material was put forth by JDA to show how the grievances of the petitioners were redressed. The Court further held that the directions passed by the division bench were general in nature and not specific to the petitioners. Hence, if the petitioners had a right to continue their possession of the lands based on the title claimed by them, the division bench order shall not apply to them and their title would need to be examined by the court of law.
The Court held that even though it was a single judge bench, the petitioners could not be thrown away before ventilating their grievances.
Accordingly, the Court granted protection to the petitioners by restraining the JDA from demolishing the properties on private lands till the matter would be heard by a regular bench after vacation.
Title: Sitaram Sharma v State of Rajasthan