The Supreme Court of India ruled that no person can be deprived of their property without adequate compensation as per the law, reaffirming the constitutional right under Article 300-A. The case involved appellants whose residential plots were acquired for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project but were denied compensation for 22 years due to delays by the state and KIADB. The Court criticized this injustice, stating that compensation based on outdated market rates would mock constitutional provisions. Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court directed a revised market value calculation and quashed the lower court’s judgment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India emphasized that no person can be deprived of their property without being paid fair compensation as per the law.
This observation was made during a Civil Appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench judgment, which dismissed an earlier Writ Appeal challenging the Single Judge’s decision.
The two-judge Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, stated:
“… 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. As discussed hereinabove, though 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. A person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same.”
Right to Property: From Fundamental to Constitutional Right
The Court pointed out that the Right to Property stopped being a Fundamental Right after the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
However, it remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A and is still considered a human right in a welfare state.
Case Background
Between 1995 and 1997, the appellants purchased residential plots through registered sale deeds, making them absolute owners. However, a Framework Agreement (FWA) was signed between the Karnataka State Government and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Ltd. (NICE) for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
Under this agreement, the government committed to acquiring 13,237 acres of private land and 6,956 acres of government land, totaling 20,193 acres, for the project.
In 1998, NICE requested the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to arrange the required land. In 2003, KIADB issued a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (KIAD Act) to acquire land for BMICP. Notices under Section 28(2) of the Act were also issued to the landowners, seeking objections.
Despite this, the appellants’ lands were taken over by KIADB and transferred to NICE and its sister company, NECE, without any compensation awarded.
Legal Battle Over Land
When the appellants didn’t receive compensation, they filed Writ Petitions in the Karnataka High Court to challenge the acquisition. The High Court, however, refused to quash the acquisition notifications, citing delay, and denied the landowners alternative plots.
Following this, the appellants approached the Single Judge, who directed the state to consider their case. However, even after filing contempt petitions for non-compliance, the compensation process remained delayed.
Eventually, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an Award granting compensation. Still, the appellants challenged the Award in the High Court.
The Single Judge ruled in their favor, but the Division Bench overturned the judgment, prompting the appellants to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the prolonged deprivation faced by the appellants:
“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.”
The Court noted that the appellants had been forced to fight for justice for 22 years, without receiving any compensation for their property. It highlighted:
“In the present case, it can clearly be seen that there is no delay which can be attributed to the appellants in not getting compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of the officers of the State/KIADB that the appellants were deprived of compensation.”
The Bench observed that compensating the appellants based on 2003 land market rates would be unfair:
“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.”
It further supported the SLAO’s decision to shift the date for determining market value, stating:
“If on account of the inordinate delay in paying the compensation and thereby depriving the constitutional right to the appellants under Article 300-A, the land acquisition proceedings are quashed, the only recourse available to the State/KIADB in order to save the project will be to now issue a fresh acquisition notification by invoking the provisions as applicable under the 2013 LA Act which would entail huge expenditure to the public exchequer.”
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
The Supreme Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, ordered shifting the date for calculating the market value of the appellants’ land.
It quashed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and disposed of the Civil Appeal.
For the appellants: Advocate-on-Record (AOR) R. Chandrachud
For the respondents: Senior Advocate Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Avishkar Singhvi, and AOR Purushottam Sharma Tripathi.
CASE TITLE:
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 3).
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Article 142
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
