Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on January 2, 2025, said thoughthe  Right to Property is no more a fundamental right, in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional right, so a person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for it.

"Right to Property ceased to be a Fundamental Right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continues to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said.

Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's division bench order of November 22, 2022, and allowed the writ petition filed by Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others in respect of land acquired for the Infrastructure Corridor Project connecting Bengaluru-Mysuru.

The apex court emphasised that compensation for the land acquired for public projects must be made with promptitude.

Court also came down heavily upon the Karnataka government authorities for making appellant landowners suffer without compensation for 22 years on account of the lethargic attitude of the officers.

The appellants were aggrieved by the award of April 22, 2019, inasmuch as, even though their lands were acquired in the year 2003, no compensation for such acquisition had been disbursed to them despite a lapse of 18 years. They contended that the compensation should be determined as per the current market value of the lands.

By a common judgment and order of April 18, 2022, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru allowed the writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents. The High Court quashed the 2019 award passed by SLAO with a direction to issue fresh award. In view of the decision in the writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents, the writ petition filed by the appellants was disposed of as the same did not survive for consideration.

The division bench also dismissed the writ appeal by the appellants, saying the grievance sought to be raised in the writ appeal was premature and that the question of considering the shifting of the date of preliminary notification to any other date would arise only when the award is passed.

The bench noted the single judge bench directed that the SLAO had to determine the compensation as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification and not to shift the date to a later or subsequent date. Therefore, the single judge bench of the High Court while exercising inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution decided against granting relief to the appellants by shifting or postponing the date of the preliminary notification to a later or subsequent date.

"In our opinion, therefore, the cause of action still survives for consideration. The division bench of the High Court should have, especially taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, at least considered the case of the appellants herein with regard to said prayer. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd November 2022, passed by the division bench of the High Court is liable to be quashed and set aside on this short ground alone. We order accordingly," the bench said.

Examining question of reliefs to the appellants, the bench said, "It cannot be gainsaid that the appellants herein have been deprived of their legitimate dues for almost 22 years ago. It can also not be controverted that money is what money buys. The value of money is based on the idea that money can be invested to earn a return, and that the purchasing power of money decreases over time due to inflation. What the appellants herein could have bought with the compensation in 2003 cannot do in 2025. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination of the award and disbursal of compensation in case of acquisition of land should be made with promptitude".

Court found that in the present case, the appellants were required to knock at the doors of the courts on a number of occasions during the period of last twenty-two years.

The bench said appellants had been deprived of their property without paying any compensation for the same in the said period of last twenty-two years.

It noted the appellants had purchased the plots in question for construction of residential houses. "Not only have they not been able to construct, but they have also not been even paid any compensation for the same," the bench said.

Only after the notices were issued in the contempt proceedings, the bench pointed out, the compensation was determined by the SLAO on April 22, 2019, taking guideline values prevailing in the year 2011 for determining the market value of the acquired land.

"We do not find any error in the approach adopted by the Single Judge of the High Court in holding that the SLAO could not have shifted the date and it could have been done only by this court in exercise of powers under Article 32/142 of the Constitution of India or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the Single Judge of the High Court instead of relegating the appellants to again go through the rigors of determination by SLAO, ought to have exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Even the division bench of the High Court on a hyper technical ground has non-suited the appellants," the bench said.

Using its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, the court directed shifting of the date for determination of the market value of the land in question of the appellants to April 22, 2019, to determine the compensation to be awarded to them.

"If the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300-A a mockery," the bench said.

"Since the State/KIADB was in deep slumber from 2003 to 2019 and acted for the first time only after the notices were issued in contempt proceedings, we find that though SLAO had no power to shift the date for determination of market value, he had rightly done so. The Single Judge of the High Court also does not say that the determination of compensation to be awarded by shifting of the date by the SLAO to that of 2011 was unjust but only sets aside the award on the ground that SLAO had no jurisdiction to do so," the bench added.

Court directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award taking the market value prevailing as on April 22, 2019, within a period of two months after hearing the parties.

Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the claims, if any, of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd and Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd (NECE) against the State government and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board qua the delay in passing the award by the SLAO, giving them liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law in case they are aggrieved by the award to be passed by the SLAO.

Case Title: Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz And Others Vs Government of Karnataka And Others