Provisions Of Any Law Seeking To Divest Any Person From The Rights In Property Have To Be Strictly Followed: SC [Read Judgment]
"Even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right."
The Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of any law seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed. The bench observed thus while allowing an appeal in a land acquisition matter in which it found that the state have failed to establish that they had acquired the land in accordance with law and paid due compensation. The case of the Appellant...
The Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of any law seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed.
The bench observed thus while allowing an appeal in a land acquisition matter in which it found that the state have failed to establish that they had acquired the land in accordance with law and paid due compensation.
The case of the Appellant was that the procedure envisaged under the Sikkim Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') had not been invoked or followed and the State encroached the property belonging to him,.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph noticed that the State had no case that they had adverse possession, but that they had acquired the land through due process and had paid compensation for the same. The burden was on the State to prove that the process as envisaged under the said Act was followed and the compensation paid. Not an iota of evidence has been laid in support of any of these aspects, the bench observed.
We may note that even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of any Act seeking to divest any person from the rights in property have to be strictly followed.
It is also settled law that following the procedure of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (akin to Section 5(1) of the said Act) is mandatory, and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein, the entire acquisition proceeding would be vitiated. An entry into the premises based on such non-compliance would result in the entry being unlawful . The law being ex-propriatory in character, the same is required to be strictly followed. The purpose of the notice is to intimate the interested persons about the intent to acquire the land. These provisions, as they read, of the said Act, thus, are also required to be so followed.
Holding thus, the bench allowed the appeal.
Case name: D.B. BASNETT (D) vs. THE COLLECTORCase no: CIVIL APPEAL NO.196 OF 2011Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph
Click here to Read/Download Judgment
Read Judgment