State Is Not Doing Any Charity By Paying Compensation To Citizen Whose Land Was Acquired : Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court held that the State cannot deprive the citizen of using the land for years and then paying compensation to show graciousness.

"Though, the Right to Property is no more a Fundamental Right, still it is recognized as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the State has been gracious, in our view, is unacceptable,",observed the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.

"The state is not doing charity by paying compensation to the citizen for acquisition of land," the Court stated.

The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court came while hearing a contempt petition filed with against the Ghaziabad Development Authority ("GDA") in respect of the Supreme Court's Order passed in May 2023. 

After knowing that the GDA failed to compensate the petitioners based on the Supreme Court's Order, the Petitioner filed a Contempt Petition before the Supreme Court.

Soon after the filing of the contempt petition, the award was released by the GDA to the tune of Rs. 407 Crores.

The Petitioners claimed that the GDA had wrongly calculated the claim, as the Petitioners were to be compensated for the agricultural land and not for the residential land.

Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi representing the respondent GDA officials submitted that the respondents have not violated any order of this Court and hence they deserve to be discharged from the contempt notice. He also tried to put across a gracious view of the authorities that it is the petitioners who have been benefited from the GDA as they would be getting a handsome amount under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Per contra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu appearing for the petitioners urged that the award allegedly passed by the authorities on 30th December, 2023 is nothing but an eyewash and is in total disregard to the statement made before the Court. He urged that neither was any notice given to the petitioners before the issuance of the award nor were the mandatory provisions of the Act of 2013 which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014 followed and thus, the award is nothing but a nullity in the eyes of law. He rather contended that looking to the facts preceding the issuance of the award, it is apparent that the award has been passed clandestinely by antedating the proceedings. 

Unimpressed with Rohatgi's contentions, the Supreme Court noted that "since we are only dealing with the contempt petition, in such jurisdiction, the limited enquiry that would be permissible is to find out whether the respondents had deliberately or willfully acted in such a manner which would amount to the disobedience of the orders passed by this Court."

The Supreme Court recorded that though respondent No.1 and its authorities cannot be held to have acted in a manner that could be said to be committing contempt of the Court, there appears to be something more in the matter that meets the eye.

"From 2017, it required a period of almost seven years for the offices of the GDA to wake up from their deep slumber and realize that the land was not a residential land but was an agricultural land.", the Supreme Court observes.

"This argument on behalf of the State or its instrumentalities after holding the land of a citizen for a period of 20 years and then taking a plea that the land owners are getting benefited, is something unpalatable.", the Supreme Court added.

The Supreme Court noted that the state is not doing charity by paying compensation to the citizen for the acquisition of land, though the Right to Property is no longer a Fundamental Right, still it is recognized as a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India

 "Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the State has been gracious, in our view, is unacceptable."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not adjudicating on the validity of the award, and liberty was being granted to the petitioners to raise all permissible challenges to the award and associated proceedings in accordance with law, which would be considered on its own merits and the same shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of the institution.

"It is further directed that if the GDA or its officers make an attempt to prolong the proceedings, the Court or the authorities would be free to draw an adverse inference and decide the proceedings within the aforesaid period.", the Top court said.

Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Anil Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Adv. Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Adv. Mr. Akshat Vachher, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anisha Mahajan, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR