Blog

The Supreme Court observed that a person’s private property seizure without following the legal process, was a violation of both human rights and constitutional rights.

Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bhagat RAM claimed to be landowners used for the construction of ‘Narag Fagla Road’ in 1972-73. They submitted a direct petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2011, looked for compensation for the subject of soil or initiation of the acquisition process under the law. They accused that there was no process of land acquisition was initiated, or compensation given to them or coexist landowners. The High Court discards this petition, with the freedom to file a civil suit in accordance with the law.

Before the APEX court, they (appellants) argue that the country illegally seizes their land, without following the legal process. Opposing their request, the state proposed that the applicants had approached the High Court after a helpless deplipt in 2011, against the actions taken by the state in 1972-73; And a huge delay of about 6 years in approaching the Supreme Court.

Bench consisting of Judge S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha observed that, in this case, the country has, by clayestin and arbitrary, actively trying to limit the disbursement of compensation as requested by law, only for those specifically driven by the court, Not for everyone who has the right. The court also observed that the state could not produce evidence indicating that the land of the applicants had been taken over or obtained in a way that was known to the law, or that they once paid any compensation.

“The state cannot protect itself behind the land of delays and Laches in such situations; it is impossible for ‘limitations’ to do justice … with the absence of written approval to voluntarily submit their land, the applicants are entitled to compensation in terms of law. “, said the bench.
The court is therefore throwing a request by making observations and directions after:

Concluded that someone’s forced seizure from their personal property without following the legal process, was a violation of both human rights, and the constitutional exactly below article 300-A, this court allowed appeal. We found that the approach taken by this court at Vidya Devi (Supra) really applies to almost identical facts before us in this case.
Given the discussion above, considering the tremendous jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution, the state with this directed to treat subject land as a acquisition that is considered and distributed compensation to the Petitioners in the same term as the reference court order on 04.10.2005 Land ref. Petition No. 10-Lac / 4 of 2004 (and consolidated problems). The respondent was directed, as a result to ensure that the right land acquisition collector calculated compensation, and channeled it to the applicants, within four months of today. The applicants will also be entitled to the consequences of the benefits of the Solatium, and the interest of all the money paid under the law of WEF 16.10.2001 (i.e. the date of issuance of notification based on part 4 act), until the date of assessment is reduced, which is 12.09. 2013.


Case Details

Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh | 2022

CORAM: Judge S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha

Advisor: Advayah Thakur for Applicant, Adv Abhinav Mukerji for the country of respondents

Headnotes.

India Constitution, 1950; Article 300A – Forced President’s Expansion of their Personal Property without following the Legal Process, is a violation of human rights, and constitutional rights based on Article 300-A – The legality threshold that must be fulfilled, to revoke the individual property of their property, and even more when done by country. (Para 25.15)

Legal rules – no one can lose freedom or property without legal processes, or legal authorization – rather than enjoying a broader lensience bandwidth, countries often have higher responsibilities in showing that they have acted within the limits of legality, and therefore , does not tarnish the basic principles of the rule of law. (Paragraph 14)

Land acquisition – Needs for written approval in terms of land acquisition process – Approach ‘oral’ for unfounding [referring to Vidya Devi V. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) ]

Summary of Himachal Pradesh HC assessment that disputes WRIT petitions challenging expansion and seeking compensation – permitted – with the absence of written approval to voluntarily hand over their land, the applicant is entitled to compensation in terms of law – the government directed to treat the subject landed as the acquisition Considered and distributed compensation appropriately to the applicants.