Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right and the State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan dismissed a petition filed by the Himachal Pradesh government against the High Court's judgment of March 27, 2024.

"We have come across several matters wherein the State of Himachal Pradesh has challenged the orders passed by the division bench of the High Court of Himachal Pardesh, thereby directing the compensation to be paid to the respondent(s)," the bench observed.

One Upender Kumar and others approached the High Court with a grievance that though the possession of their lands was taken for road construction, they did not receive compensation.

"Although the right to property is no longer considered a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right. The State cannot be permitted to acquire citizen land without paying appropriate compensation," the top court bench said.

In these circumstances, the bench felt that it would have been justified to dismiss the government's special leave petitions with exemplary costs.

"However, we refrain from doing so now and simply dismiss these special leave petitions," the bench said.

In the SLP, the respondents were the land owners, whose lands were claimed to have been utilised by the State for construction of roads in their respective villages ranging from the years 1971, 1975-76 to 1985-86.

According to them, at the time of construction of the road, they had raised objections and requested the State to acquire their land in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before construction of the roads in question, and then commence with the construction thereof. However, on the undertakings given by the representatives/officers of the respondents-State that acquisition proceedings would be started and the amount of compensation would be paid to the landowners in accordance with law, the landowners allowed the construction of the roads through their respective land.

The State claimed that there was an oral consent on behalf of the owners of the property and that only after obtaining the oral consent of the owners that their properties were taken and roads constructed.

Expressing utmost dismay and anguish, the High Court had said that the legal position with regard to utilisation of the land by the State without acquisition was un-exceptionable and the State had no other option but to clear the land in accordance with law and pay compensation in accordance with law.

Case Title: The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors Vs Upender Kumar