Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court emphatically held that the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution was violated by the unauthorized acquisition and use of the petitioner’s private land by the Government without any acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation. The Court concluded that such actions amounted to an illegal deprivation of the petitioner’s property and cannot be justified under any governmental authority. It accordingly directed the State to pay compensation to the petitioner for the portion of land illegally taken over.
“No authority, including the Government, can take over private land without following the due process of law and without paying compensation. Such action would amount to expropriation.”
Facts
The petitioner approached the High Court alleging that the Government had constructed a road over his private land without initiating acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act), or its predecessor statutes. Despite repeated representations and requests made to the authorities, no steps were taken to compensate the petitioner. The land was being used as a public road without legal sanction.
Issues
- Whether the Government can take over private land without initiating acquisition proceedings?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the LARR Act or other applicable legal provisions?
- Whether the continued possession of the land by the State violates the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 300A?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that his property was forcibly and illegally taken over by the Government and used for constructing a public road. No notification under Section 11 of the LARR Act was issued. No award was passed, nor was any compensation paid. This, according to the petitioner, was a gross violation of his right to property. He argued that Article 300A mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, and since no law or acquisition process had been followed, the action was illegal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State Government, while not denying the factual assertion that the land had been taken and used for a public road, claimed that the road was laid in the larger public interest and that the petitioner had not raised objections in time. The Government contended that regularisation steps were being contemplated and that the petitioner had failed to approach the revenue authorities for mutation or compensation. It was argued that retrospective approval or ex post facto acquisition could be undertaken in appropriate cases.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the scope of Article 300A and the statutory acquisition mechanisms under the LARR Act. It reiterated that even if the State requires land for a public purpose, it must act strictly within the framework of the law. The principles of eminent domain require that any taking of private property must be for a public purpose and must be accompanied by fair compensation.
The Court noted that the State had not followed any acquisition process under the LARR Act, 2013, nor was any emergency acquisition resorted to under its provisions. The absence of a notification under Section 11, declaration under Section 19, or an award under Section 23 was fatal to the respondent’s case.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court, including:
- Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala – where it was held that unauthorised acquisition of land, even if for public purposes, is a violation of Article 300A and liable to be compensated.
- K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1 – which declared that right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a constitutional right and cannot be arbitrarily taken away.
- Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 9 SCC 356 – where the Supreme Court condemned the state for laying roads on private land without acquisition proceedings and directed restoration or compensation.
These precedents established that the right to property remains sacrosanct and State action must be backed by legal procedure and compensation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the respondents had, in fact, used the land of the petitioner for construction of a road without initiating any acquisition process. There was no justification for such unauthorized occupation. The Court rejected the respondent’s contention of public interest, holding that public interest cannot override constitutional guarantees.
The delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court was held not to be fatal, as the cause of action was a continuing one. The fact that the petitioner had been dispossessed without due process itself entitled him to a constitutional remedy.
The Court stated:
“Even the State cannot plead administrative convenience or larger good to override a citizen’s constitutional right to property without following legal procedures.”
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had been illegally dispossessed of his land. The State was directed to either initiate acquisition proceedings under the LARR Act, 2013, within a specified period or compensate the petitioner at market value with interest from the date of dispossession. The Court made it clear that such highhandedness on the part of the State is not acceptable in a constitutional democracy.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the inviolability of the right to property under Article 300A and sends a strong message to state authorities that any unauthorized occupation or use of private land is illegal and unconstitutional. It upholds the principle that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed in the name of public interest or administrative necessity. The decision will likely influence land acquisition practices across the state and compel authorities to follow proper legal procedures and ensure timely compensation.
Cases Referred
- K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1
Held that deprivation of property without legal authority and compensation is unconstitutional under Article 300A. - Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2020) 9 SCC 356
Declared that land acquisition without legal procedure is illegal, and directed restoration or compensation. - Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala
Reaffirmed that public interest does not justify acquisition without due process and compensation.
FAQs
1. Can the Government take over private land without compensation?
No. The Kerala High Court held that any such act is unconstitutional under Article 300A, and the State must compensate the landowner or follow acquisition procedures.
2. What is the remedy if land is taken without acquisition?
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed seeking compensation or restoration of possession. The petitioner can demand compensation under the LARR Act.
3. Does delay in approaching the Court bar compensation?
No. The Court held that where there is continuing violation of constitutional rights, delay is not fatal and the cause of action remains alive.