No Land Acquisition Compensation Determined For 42 Years : Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment With HC For Not Questioning State

“We are not convinced but rather disappointed with the approach of the High Court while disposing of the appeal. There are many issues arising in this litigation and the High Court should have taken little pains to ask the State why it made the appellant run from pillar to post. It is sad to note that the appellant passed away fighting for his right to receive compensation. Now the legal heirs of the appellant are pursuing this litigation.,” stated Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The brief facts of the case are such that somewhere in 1977, the land of the appellant was acquired. However, it is his stance that he was not paid any compensation for the same. Though he had filed an application addressed to the State Government, no action was taken in that regard. In the absence of any award of compensation being passed, the appellant approached the High Court. The Single Judge Bench rejected the same only on the count that the petition had been filed after a period of forty-two years of the acquisition.

When the case went to the High Court , the following observations were made in its judgment delivered in February 2023:

“In view of the categorical stand of the State that the land of the appellants had been consumed and that the State is ready to compensate the appellants, nothing remains in this appeal to be decided. The appellants have been informed about the value of the land has been assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- . All that the appellants have to do is to file an application before the concerned authority as to how the amount shall be apportioned between him and his son.”

Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Apex Court. At the outset, the Court dealt with the approach of the Division Bench. The Court questioned the High Court's approach for arriving at the amount of Rs 4,68,099/ as the value of the land. “We fail to understand on what basis this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time this amount came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment of such amount.,” the Court said.

The Court then went on to observe that the High Court should have enquired the State that why the compensation was not released in 1977 itself. Further, why did it take the State 42 years to reach this figure of Rs 4,68,099 in 2019. It was also pointed out that the High Court did not queried the State on the basis for arriving at this figure.

“It is a well settled position of law that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the owner of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even file an appeal for the enhancement of the same. The High Court proceeded on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been assessed and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate application and get the amount disbursed in his favour.,” the Court added.

Notably, the Court also underscored that in the year when the appellant's land was acquired, the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 of the Indian Constitution. Even after that, this right remained a constitutional right under Article 300-A.

To bolster this, the Court cited a thread of precedents, including the K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1. Therein, it was held that 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. 

As far as the approach of the Singh-judge Bench in dismissing the appellant's plea only on the ground of delay, the Court reiterated that there is no limitation period on Courts to do substantial justice.

For this, the Court cited the case of Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors (2020) 2 SCC 569. In this case, the Court had held that delay and laches cannot be raised if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the court. The condition of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of this above projection, the Court while setting aside the impugned order, remitted the matter to the High Court. The High Court was directed to hear both the sides and pass an appropriate order in light of the above observations within two months. 

Case Title: Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others., Civil Appeal No 6351 of 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Click here to read/ download the judgment