State Authorities Cannot Act As ‘Goons’ By Dispossessing Person From His Property & Not Paying Compensation To Him: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court remarked that the State authorities cannot act as ‘goons’ by dispossessing any person from his/her property and then not paying compensation to him//her.
The Jabalpur Bench was deciding a writ petition filed by a woman who claimed that the possession of her land was taken by the authorities without acquiring the same.
A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “… it is clear that no one can be deprived of her right to property which is not only a Constitutional one, but is also a human right. The State authorities cannot act as goons thereby dispossessing any person from his/her property and then claiming that they will not pay any compensation/rent/mesne profit to the illegally dispossessed person, specifically when they sat over the matter for 17 years, i.e. from 3/7/2007, when they themselves had decided that the land should be acquired. Thus, it is clear that the State authorities are not ready to respect the law of land and they are acting as per their own wishes.”
The Bench said that the liability to pay compensation for illegal dispossession of a person cannot be fastened on the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
Advocate R.K. Sanghi represented the petitioner while Deputy Advocate General (DAG) Swapnil Ganguly and Advocate Vikram Singh represented the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner claimed that the possession of her land was taken without acquiring the same. A notification for acquisition of certain lands was issued but the petitioner’s land was not included in the same. Ultimately, the matter went to the District Court and it held that as the land of the petitioner was not included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it cannot be held that the said land was acquired. Accordingly, it was directed that if the land owner has been dispossessed, then the possession should be restored back. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to take up the issue.
The Collector held that since the possession of the land has already been taken and the same has also been handed over to NHAI and construction of by-pass has also been completed, therefore, it would not be in the public interest to return the land and thus, a direction was issued to take necessary action for acquisition of land. In spite of the fact that 17 long years had passed, neither the possession of the land was returned back to the petitioner nor it was acquired. Hence, she sought that the action on the part of the respondents be declared as void ab initio, the acquisition proceedings be declared as lapsed, and possession of the land be restored in her favour with costs of Rs. 1,000/- per day for illegal possession and unnecessary harassment.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “It is really unfortunate that this petition is pending since 2016. For the last 8 years, no effective action was taken by the Collector, Jabalpur to comply the order dated 3/7/2007 passed by his own predecessor as well as to comply the orders passed by the Civil Court as well as High Court. Thus, intention of the Collector, Jabalpur is writ large and he is not inclined to obey the order passed by the High Court.”
The Court asked as to how the State Government can deprive a person from his/her Constitutional as well as human right as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
“If the State Government had decided to return the land, then the petitioner was entitled for compensation as per Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act and now once the State Government has decided to retain the land, then how the State Government can refuse to pay rent/mesne profit/compensation to the petitioner for illegally depriving her from the land in dispute?”, it added.
The Court further said that the solitary intention of the Collector, Jabalpur is to somehow keep the proceedings pending by flouting the orders passed by the Court and without respecting the Constitutional right of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
“Although the petitioner has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day for illegally taking possession of 29150 sq ft of land, but this Court is of considered opinion that the said rate is on a higher side, therefore, by reserving the right of the petitioner for claiming higher compensation, it is directed that the State Government shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner for illegally dispossessing her from her 29150 sq ft of land w.e.f. 5/2/1988”, it directed.
The Court also issued notice to the Collector to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt may not be initiated against him for flouting the orders of the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the Collector.
Cause Title- Shashi Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:50683)
