Right To Protect Private Property Can't Be Brushed Away Merely Due To Delay & Laches: Supreme Court Condones 21-Year Delay In Land Acquisition Case

The Supreme Court recently observed that while delay in approaching the court is a significant factor, the right to property of an individual cannot be defeated solely on the ground of delay and laches.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra condoned of delay of 21 years by original landowners (respondents) in challenging land acquisition proceedings on the ground that significant illegalities were alleged in the acquisition process.

“The decisions of this Court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in approaching the court, while a significant factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300A. The court must balance the need for finality in legal proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The right of an individual to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay and laches”, the Court observed.

The Court dismissed four appeals by the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) challenging Rajasthan High Court judgment which quashed acquisition of respondents' land under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (RUI Act).

Facts

The case pertains to two separate parcels of land: the Nangli Kota lands and the Moongaska lands in Tehsil and District Alwar, Rajasthan.

The Nangli Kota lands comprised Survey No. 229 (2 bighas and 2 biswas) and Survey No. 229/287 (2 bighas and 18 biswas). Initially owned by Ram Narain, these lands were inherited by his seven sons and two daughters after his death in 1973. On July 1, 1976, a notice under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act proposed the acquisition of the land for urban development. Subsequently, a notification under Section 52(1) was issued on June 16, 1977, and published in the official gazette on June 23, 1977. Compensation was determined at Rs. 90,000, which the seven sons accepted on July 1, 1980. However, disputes arose over possession, with the respondents (original landowners) asserting that possession was never handed over to the State Government.

The Moongaska lands measured 3 bighas and 9 biswas and were jointly owned by Ram Narain, Radhey Shyam, Yogesh Chandra Goyal, and Manohar Lal. Similar acquisition proceedings were initiated on July 1, 1976. A final notification under Section 52(1) was issued on June 16, 1977, and published on June 23, 1977. Compensation was fixed at Rs. 27,600 in 1988, but disputes arose as the respondents ( declined to accept it, alleging non-compliance with legal requirements under the RUI Act.

Both acquisition proceedings were challenged by the respondents before the Rajasthan High Court in 1998.

Proceedings before the High Court

A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court on October 29, 2009, quashed the acquisition proceedings and notifications for both parcels of land. It held that there was no substantial delay by the respondents in filing the writ petitions, notices under Section 52(2) of the RUI Act were not properly served, and compensation was not determined or paid in accordance with Section 60A of the RUI Act, as amended. Aggrieved by this decision, the Urban Improvement Trust and the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The Supreme Court identified key issues, including whether the delay in filing the writ petitions by the respondents was fatal, whether the notifications under Section 52(1) of the RUI Act were valid despite procedural irregularities, whether compensation for the Nangli Kota lands was lawfully determined, and whether compliance with Section 60A of the RUI Act was mandatory for the validity of the acquisition.

Arguments

For the appellants (UIT and state of Rajasthan), it was argued that the respondents participated in the acquisition proceedings and were aware of the notifications, so service of individual notices under Section 52(2) was not necessary. It was also contended that compensation for Nangli Kota lands was agreed upon at Rs. 90,000 by the seven sons of Ram Narain. The delay of 21 years in challenging the acquisition proceedings rendered the respondents' writ petitions unsustainable.

For the respondents, it was argued that notices under Section 52(2) were not served individually or pasted conspicuously, violating the mandatory procedure and prejudicing their right to be heard. Compensation for both parcels of land was neither determined nor paid within the stipulated timeframe, rendering the acquisitions void.

Verdict

Regarding the delay in filing writ petitions, the Court noted three procedural irregularities that could affect the respondents' rights: (1) the notice under Section 52(2) was not individually served to the landowners nor posted at a visible location near the property; (2) possession was taken by the State Government and transferred to the appellant Trust before compensation was deposited, violating Section 52(7) of the RUI Act; and (3) compensation for the Nangli Kota lands was not paid within the timelines set by Sections 60A(3) and (4).

“Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petition filed before the High Court, despite the significant delay, raised substantial questions regarding the legality of the land acquisition proceedings. The alleged patent illegality in the acquisition process justify the condonation of delay in this exceptional case”, the Court observed.

The Court examined the procedural requirements of Section 52. For the Nangli Kota lands, it found that although individual notices under Section 52(2) were not served, the respondents' participation in the proceedings indicated they had constructive notice. As a result, the notification under Section 52(1) was upheld. For the Moongaska lands, however, it found that two of the original landowners and their heirs did not participate in the proceedings. This lack of proper notice under Section 52(2) violated their right to be heard, rendering the notification under Section 52(1) invalid, the Court held.

Regarding compensation, the Court noted that compensation for the Nangli Kota lands was agreed upon at Rs. 90,000. Despite taking possession of the land in 1980 and transferring it to the appellant trust in 1981, the compensation was only deposited with the reference court in 1997—more than a decade later. The Court ruled that this delay violated Section 60A(4) of the RUI Act, which mandates timely payment within six months. The prolonged delay is a breach of Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property as a constitutional and human right, the Court said.

“This Court in the case of Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2598 has held that the right to property is to be considered not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right and therefore, time is of the essence in determination and payment of compensation by the State, otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300A of the Constitution”, the Court observed.

The Court emphasized that Sections 60A(3) and 60A(4) mandated strict adherence to timelines for determining and paying compensation. Non-compliance with these provisions invalidated acquisitions under the RUI Act.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024 and connected appeals

Case Title – Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1008