Article 300-A – Right to property – Unauthorised encroachment by State
Paras 11, 12, 18
Right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and no person can be deprived of property save by authority of law.
Illegal laying of road without acquisition – Violation of constitutional and human rights
Paras 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 18
Laying of a BT road over private land without issuing notice, without conducting acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation amounts to illegal deprivation of property, offending Article 300-A and the rule of law; right to property is also recognised as a human right.
Admission of encroachment by State – Effect
Paras 7, 8, 10, 18
Where the respondent authorities themselves admit that private land has been encroached and a road laid thereon, the State cannot deny relief on the ground of public utility or absence of budgetary provision for compensation.
Public purpose – No justification for bypassing due process
Paras 7, 14
Even if land is utilised for a public purpose such as road widening, the State must comply with statutory procedure for acquisition and cannot arrogate to itself the power to dispossess citizens without authority of law.
Severance and loss of utility – Relevant consideration
Paras 16, 17
Where encroachment renders the remaining land inaccessible, uneconomical or uncultivable due to severance, the authorities are bound to consider acquisition of the affected land and payment of just compensation.
Relief – Restoration or acquisition with compensation
Para 19
In cases of illegal encroachment, the appropriate relief is either restoration of possession within a specified time or, in the alternative, initiation of land acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation in accordance with law.
ANALYSIS
1. Nature of the Writ Petition
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 seeking enforcement of the District Collector’s order dated 06.12.2021 and for compensation for Ac.0.05 cents of land in Sy.No.164/2, allegedly encroached by the State authorities by laying a BT road without acquisition.
2. Factual Findings
-
Petitioners were owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.164/2.
-
Respondent authorities admitted that a BT road was laid over Ac.0.05 cents of the petitioners’ land.
-
Joint survey confirmed encroachment.
-
No acquisition proceedings were initiated.
-
No compensation was paid.
-
Authorities pleaded public utility and resistance by local villagers as reasons for non-removal of the road.
3. Legal Principles Applied
The Court relied on settled constitutional jurisprudence that:
-
Property cannot be taken without authority of law.
-
Public purpose does not override procedural safeguards.
-
State action must conform to due process.
-
Right to property is intertwined with human dignity and livelihood.
4. Rejection of State’s Defence
The plea that there was “no provision for payment of compensation” was rejected as constitutionally untenable. Administrative inconvenience or public opposition cannot defeat constitutional guarantees.
5. Relief Structured by the Court
The Court balanced equities by:
-
Granting time to restore possession; and
-
Providing an alternative direction to compulsorily acquire the land and pay compensation if restoration was not feasible.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The State cannot lay roads or undertake public works on private land without following due process of law; any deprivation of property without acquisition proceedings and payment of just compensation violates Article 300-A of the Constitution, and where restoration is not feasible, the authorities are bound to acquire the land and compensate the owner in accordance with law, since the right to property is both a constitutional and human right
No comments:
Post a Comment