The Supreme Court declared it unacceptable to deprive a citizen of their constitutional right to use the land for 20 years, only to later offer compensation and publicly celebrate the gesture.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court underscores that the State’s provision of compensation to citizens for land acquisition isn’t an act of charity.
Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that the State cannot claim generosity when fulfilling its obligation to compensate landowners, reaffirming the right to property enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The Court expressed its disapproval of the notion that after depriving citizens of their constitutional right to land use for two decades, the State can simply offer compensation and portray itself as benevolent. It stated,
“Depriving a citizen of his Constitutional Right to use the land for 20 years and then showing graciousness by paying the compensation and beating drums that the State has been gracious, in our view, is unacceptable.”
This stance was taken in response to a contempt case against officials of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) who failed to adequately compensate landowners for land acquired in 2004. Despite the compensation award being issued only after the Court intervened with contempt notices to the GDA in December 2023, the Court dismissed the argument that the delay was beneficial to landowners due to increased compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
The Court rejected the argument that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) had adequately addressed the concerns of the landowners. It highlighted that the GDA took seven years to determine that the acquired land was agricultural, not residential.
Moreover, the Court was not swayed by the GDA’s assertion that the delay benefited landowners by enabling them to receive a higher compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act compared to the earlier 1956 law. It remarked,
“This argument on behalf of the State or its instrumentalities after holding the land of a citizen for a period of 20 years and then taking a plea that the landowners are getting benefited, is something unpalatable.”
Despite this, the Court concluded the contempt proceedings, considering the possibility of miscommunications between the GDA and its legal representatives. It found no deliberate defiance of court orders by the GDA and closed the case.
However, the Court clarified that it hadn’t ruled on the validity of the compensation award, leaving landowners free to challenge it if necessary. Such challenges must be addressed within six months, with the Court warning against any attempts by the GDA to prolong the process.
It stated,
“If the GDA or its officers make an attempt to prolong the proceedings, the Court or the authorities would be free to draw an adverse inference and decide the proceedings within the aforesaid period.”
Read order
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
