The Supreme Court recently imposed legal costs and expenses of Rs 50,000 on the Himachal Pradesh government for disregarding the rights of some persons during land acquisition and asked the State to compute the compensation and disburse the amount to them.
A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha held that if the State authorities forcibly dispossess any person without following the due process of law, then it is a violation of their constitutional and human rights under Article 300A.
It noted, "When it comes to the subject of private property, this court has upheld the high threshold of legality that must be met, to dispossess an individual of their property, and even more so when done by the State."
The apex court while allowing the appeal of landowners directed the State to compute the compensation and disburse the amount to the appellants within four months, along with consequential benefits of solatium and interest on all sums payable under law from 2001 to 2013.
"Given the disregard for the appellants' fundamental rights which has caused them to approach this court and receive remedy decades after the act of dispossession, we also deem it appropriate to direct the Respondent-State to pay legal costs and expenses of Rs 50,000 to the appellants," the verdict of the apex court stated.
As per the case, the appellants' land was taken by the State for the construction of a road, but no land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State.
Some neighbouring landowners, except the appellants, approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2001 for initiation of land acquisition proceedings and their plea was allowed and an order for initiation of land acquisition proceedings was issued.
Fixed compensation was paid to only those landowners who approached the High Court. In 2011, the appellants in the case approached the High Court seeking compensation for the acquisition of their land and initiation of proceedings. However, the High Court rejected their petition and thereafter they filed an appeal before the top court against the order of the High Court.
The apex court in its verdict said that the State cannot merely on the ground of delay and laches get away from its legal responsibility of compensating individuals from whom private property has been taken away.
"The State's lackadaisical conduct is discernible from this action of initiating acquisition proceedings selectively, only in respect to the lands of those writ petitioners who had approached the court in earlier proceedings, and not other landowners," the Supreme Court stated.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor