The Allahabad excessive court docket has cautioned the state authorities towards utilizing personal land with out buying the identical by way of authorized process, stating that in case of any default heavy penalty will probably be imposed on the officers liable for it.
The property of a citizen could be acquired for public function on cost of compensation as per legislation, the court docket mentioned. (For Illustration)
Permitting a writ petition filed by one Kanyawati of Bareilly district, a division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta in a latest order noticed, “The state authorities are required to be cautious that they should not utilize the land of the citizens without due authority of law or without following the proper procedure of acquisition, else the authorities, who may be found responsible for such utilization of land without due procedure of law shall be held responsible personally and the court will have to impose heavy penalty for such actions on the part of the authorities, which shall be recovered from their personal account.”
Within the current case, the petitioner bought a bit of land in Bareilly district. On the time of buy, the income file mirrored the ‘chak’ (public) street which was to the south of the petitioner’s plot. Subsequently, the street was widened and a portion of petitioner’s land was taken for a similar with out awarding her any compensation.
When the petitioner filed an RTI software, she was knowledgeable that there was no file for any acquisition proceedings for her land. Regardless of repeated representations to the authority for compensation, the petitioner acquired no response.
Thereafter, she approached the excessive court docket whereby her writ petition was disposed of with a course to “the district magistrate- Bareilly to refer the matter to the district level committee in terms of the government order (GO) dated May 12, 2016 for determination of entitlement of compensation of the petitioner herein.”
The district degree committee rejected the petitioner’s declare stating that originally the ‘chak’ street was 3-metre vast and further 2.5-metre was accessible on each side. Subsequently, by widening the street 1.25- metre, no particular person proper of the tenure holder had been infringed. Therefore, the petitioner filed the current writ petition.
The court docket noticed that preliminary ‘chak’ street was developed by the sugar trade and cane growth division round 20 years again with none acquisition and it was subsequently widened by the PWD by taking away sure portion of petitioner’s land with out correct acquisition course of.
After analyzing the tehsildar’s report, the court docket held that the Structure of India granted a proper to property underneath Article 300A and prohibited deprivation of property with out following due process of legislation.
“The land of a person cannot be acquired without payment of due compensation in accordance with law. There is no concept of implied consent for utilizing the land of a citizen without following the due procedure and without payment of compensation. The property of a citizen can be acquired for public purpose on payment of reasonable compensation in accordance with law,” the court docket added.
The court docket held that proper to property being a Constitutional proper as an alternative of a basic one was at par with human rights and an individual couldn’t be disadvantaged of the best over their property with out following due process in legislation. It held that any particular person whose land is being utilised with out sanction of legislation is entitled to compensation.