9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it. In the present case, the Appellant being an illiterate person, who is a widow coming from a rural area has been deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law. The Appellant has been divested of her right to property without being paid any compensation whatsoever for over half a century. The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arnt of these proceedings in 2010, when she alongwith her two daughters filed C.W.P. No. 1736 of 2010 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, praying that the State be directed to pay compensation for the land acquired in 1967 68; or, in the alternative, direct the State to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondent State filed its reply before the High Court, wherein it was admitted that the Department had used land in the ownership of the Appellant for the construction of the Nadaun Sujanpur road, a major district road in 1967 68. The State had been in continuous possession of the property since 1967 68, i.e., for the last 42 years, and the title of the Respondent State got converted into adverse possession . It was submitted that the statutory remedy available to the Appellant was by filing a Civil Suit. The State has further admitted that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued in 2008 with respect to the land of Anakh Singh a neighbouring land-owner, whose land was similarly taken over for the same purpose. Furthermore, the Writ Petition was barred by laches, since the road was constructed in 1967 68 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contained in Article 300 A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. (emphasis supplied) In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517. , this Court held that: 21. If the right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300 A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed. (emphasis supplied) In Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. State of U.P. Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 354 , this Court recognized the right to property as a basic human right in the following words: 30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e possession. The State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case. 10.7. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the Appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional Court would exercise its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, and not in the case of other land owners whose lands were compulsorily taken over, for the same purpose, and at the same time. As a consequence, the present land owner has been driven to move the Court in their individual cases for redressal. 13 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondent State is directed to pay the compensation on the same terms as awarded by the Reference Court vide Order dated 07.07.2015 in Anakh Singh s case (i.e. Land Reference No.1 of 2011 RBT No.01/13) alongwith all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, etc. within a period of 8 weeks, treating it as a case of deemed acquisition. An Affidavit of compliance is directed to be filed by the State before this Court within 10 weeks. It is informed that an appeal has been preferred by Ravinder Singh s/o Anakh Singh Ors. being RFA No.35 of 2016 which is pending before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. Taking note thereof, if an appeal is filed by the present appellant within 8 weeks from the date of compensation being paid to her by the State, the appeal will be treated to be within limitation, and would be decided on its own merits in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
