'Fundamental Right To Shelter Violated': Allahabad HC Orders ₹2L Compensation, Vacant Land For 2 Who Were Unlawfully Dispossessed By Authorities

Recently, the Allahabad High Court directed the official state authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, and vacant land to two persons who were admittedly unlawfully dispossessed of their land by the them.

While awarding the compensation, Justice J.J. Munir held that

“They (referring to State Authorities) have employed powers available to them and the might of the State to unlawfully deprive the petitioners of their roof and shelter, which they now admit before this Court was on account of not noting earlier orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The respondents also acknowledge that they have constructed public toilets over a part of the land in dispute, to which they had no right, whatsoever, under the law. They have also acknowledged that the petitioners' right under the awasiya patta is a subsisting right.”

Factual Background

The first petitioner's father, Ramji Lal and the second petitioner's father, Keshav Dayal, were both granted an awasiya patta each by the Land Management Committee, Gram Panchayat Alinagar Kenjra, District Firozabad in 1976, both residential plots being located in Plot No. 53. Apart from the petitioners' predecessors-in-interest, 136 other residents of the village were also granted residential patta of an identical area, all comprised in Plot No. 53. The competent authority approved all the patta numbering a total of 138, including that granted to the petitioners' predecessors.

Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the State under Rule 115P of UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Rules, 1952 questioning the validity of the aforesaid awasiya patta. Petitioners' predecessors contested the proceedings and filed objections to defend the allotments. In 1985, the Additional Collector (Administration), Firozabad passed an order discharging the notices issued to the petitioners' predecessors as also all other similarly circumstanced allottees. The Additional Collector recorded that the allottees have deposited a sum of money equal to 40 times the land revenue payable and raised constructions on the land allotted to each of them. Accordingly, he refused to disturb the allotments.

The state of UP preferred Revision under Section 333A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 19502 before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The Additional Commissioner, before whom the revision came up, made a reference to the Board of Revenue to set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector. The Board of Revenue remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner for decision afresh who dismissed the revision as not maintainable.

However, in 2017, petitioners filed representations before authorities in Firozabad to restrain the authorities from interfering in the possession of their land and restore the possession to them. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) passed an order in 2021 directing the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar, Sadar Chauri Chaura, Raja Talab to demarcate the petitioners' land, in the event the petitioners' allotment has not been set aside. It was further directed that illegal occupants, if any, be removed. Petitioners filed further representations for protection of their rights before approaching the High Court.

Petitioners argued that the order passed in their favour has attained finality since the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the subsequent order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra were not challenged before any Court of law. Accordingly, it was argued that the dispossession of the plots was without following due process of law. It has been contended that the petitioners had deposited 40 times the land revenue and still possession of their land was not restored. The construction of the land was being razed to the ground by use of force.

Petitioners pleaded that they were illegally deprived of roof and shelter by respondent authorities which was a violation of their fundamental right to shelter under Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. “To take away a man's roof and shelter otherwise than by procedure established by law is an act that cannot be lightly noticed by this Court and passed over,” argued the petitioners.

In their affidavits, Respondent Authorities stated that in 2017 public toilets were constructed on the land belonging to the petitioner and the land was demarcated by boundary walls in 2021. They acknowledged the rights created in favour of the petitioners by the order passed in 1985. They undertook to comply with the orders of the High Court regarding possession of the petitioners' land.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another and New Reviera Coop. Housing Society and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, wherein the Supreme Court recognised the right to shelter as a fundamental right. The Court observed that after the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, the State had brought in various schemes for providing housing to poor and marginalised sections of the society, especially in rural areas.

“In the above conspectus, to deprive the petitioners of their roof and shelter, who, apparently, belong to the marginalised sections of the rural populace is certainly a violation of their fundamental right to shelter. It is not a case, where, their shelter has been taken away by a lawful act of the State, in furtherance of a larger public interest.”

The Court observed that admittedly, petitioners had been dispossessed of their land by the respondent in the exercise of their public functions. It was held that the authorities used the powers available to them to unlawfully deprive the petitioners of their roof and shelter.

Accordingly, while allowing the petitioner, the Court awarded a cost of Rs. 2,00,000 to each petitioner and directed that their possession be restored on or before 30^th December 2023. The Court directed the respondent authorities to remove the public toilets, boundary wall or any other encumbrances constructed on the plots of the petitioner.

Case Title: Bhurangi and another vs. State of U.P. and others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 485 [WRIT - C No. - 19079 of 2022]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 485

Click Here To Read/Download Order