Mumbai, The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on the Maharashtra government for evading its obligatory duty by not paying compensation to a villager after acquiring her land for a public project in 1990.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan held that acquiring a person’s land without following due process of law and/or without paying compensation amounted to a violation of constitutional rights.
The order was passed on May 2 in a petition filed by Sumitra Shridhar Khane, who said the government had acquired her land at Vhanur village in Kolhapur district in September 1990, but she hasn’t been paid compensation to date.
The court noted that the case depicted the breach of the petitioner’s constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, which is the basic illegality and a wrong done to her, and it was also a case of continuing wrong, as she is yet to be compensated.
Irked with the government’s lack of empathy, the court said the sad reality could never be overlooked that every person in such a situation may not be so fortunate, in the first place, to be informed of their legal rights and then to receive legal advice and thereafter to knock the doors of the court.
“Not every person has the means/ resources to do so. It is for such a reason that the State officers posted on such duties are under an onerous obligation to adhere to the lawful procedure and protect the rights of such citizens. This is a constitutional duty,” the court said.
The court cannot be oblivious to the State’s basic constitutional responsibility and obligation, it added.
The bench said that the State’s lackadaisical approach and actions or inactions have exacerbated the injustice suffered by the petitioner.
It was “quite astonishing” that the state government would intend to evade its obligatory duty of paying compensation to Khane, it said.
The court declared that Khane was entitled to compensation for the acquisition of her land and directed the government to compute the compensation payable to her and disburse the amount with interest within four months.
It further said that since there was a patent breach of the petitioner’s constitutional rights, it is appropriate and imminent in the interest of justice to direct the government to pay her ₹25,000 for legal expenses.
In a society governed by the rule of law, there can be no discrimination in law, the court said, adding that there cannot be different standards, yardsticks and methods in the application of the law to persons of limited means who are not literate or well versed of their legal and constitutional rights.
“Likes should be treated alike. This is a constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws in a welfare state,” the court said.
The bench remarked that it was the solemn duty and responsibility of the State to uniformly apply the law, as also take corrective actions when it is noticed that the State’s actions are in breach of law and the constitutional rights.
“Any breach of such fundamental mandates has no place in a civilised society,” the bench said.
As per the plea, Khane owned a hectare of land at Vhanur village in Kolhapur. In 1990, some lands in the village were notified for mass acquisition for a public project of rehabilitation of persons affected by the Dudhganga irrigation project.
The petitioner said pursuant to the acquisition notice, she had voluntarily handed over her land to the government in September 1990.
While the government claimed that since Khane had voluntarily given the land, she was not eligible for compensation, the court noted that she had never given up her right to compensation at the time.
The court also refused to accept the government’s contention that the petitioner can’t seek compensation three decades later and said it cannot fathom that in a civilised society, a situation of continuous wrong is being caused to a person.
The court, in its order, said under Article 300A of the Constitution, a person can be deprived of his or her property only by a process known to law and hence, any action to take over or acquire land without following the due process of law and without payment of compensation would amount to an “unconstitutional and arbitrary” action.
It said such action not only results in a breach of the constitutional right guaranteed to a citizen of this country but also renders the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, under which the person is sought to be deprived of his or her land, nugatory.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.