Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others
"A person can be deprived of property only by a procedure prescribed by law; where the State takes land without completing its acquisition, delay is not an absolute bar to relief, and the owners are entitled to have the land acquired afresh with compensation assessed as on the date of the new notification."
Issues Before the Court
- (i)
Whether the claim of landowners whose land was taken over in 1964 for an industrial project, without the acquisition being completed or compensation paid, could be rejected on the ground of delay?
- (ii)
Whether the State could deprive them of their land otherwise than by a procedure prescribed by law?
Law & Rules Applicable
- (i)
Constitution of India, Article 300A (no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law) and Article 226.
- (ii)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 (preliminary notification, declaration, notice to persons interested, and award).
Application to Facts & Circumstances
The appellants' land in village Shirwame, Thane was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in 1964 for an industrial project, and possession was taken that year and handed to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. No declaration under Section 6 followed, so the proceedings lapsed; a fresh Section 4 notification issued in 1981 also lapsed. Others whose land was taken were paid compensation in 1966, but the appellants, illiterate farmers, received nothing. The High Court dismissed their writ petition on the ground of delay and the unavailability of records.
The Court held that the right to property is now considered not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right, and that a person can be deprived of property only by a procedure prescribed by statute. Taking over the land without completing its acquisition deprived the owners of their property without the authority of law; the authorities had treated them as subjects rather than as citizens.
Delay and laches are one factor in the exercise of discretion, not an absolute bar. Where the facts shock the judicial conscience, the Court should exercise its discretion. Here the wrong was continuing, the appellants were illiterate farmers, and similarly placed persons had long since been compensated.
Conclusion & Ruling
- (i)
The authorities were directed to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 within four weeks, a declaration under Section 6 within a week thereafter, and notice under Section 9, and to make the award within three months, with market value assessed as on the date of the fresh Section 4 notification and all statutory benefits.
- (ii)
The appellants remained free to pursue the statutory remedies for enhancement of compensation.
- (iii)
Where land is taken without the authority of law, delay is not an absolute bar to relief, and compensation is to be assessed as on a current date rather than the date of the original dispossession.