Right To Protect Private Property Can't Be Brushed Away Merely Due To Delay & Laches: Supreme Court Condones 21-Year Delay In Land Acquisition Case

Regarding the delay in filing writ petitions, the Court noted three procedural irregularities that could affect the respondents' rights: (1) the notice under Section 52(2) was not individually served to the landowners nor posted at a visible location near the property; (2) possession was taken by the State Government and transferred to the appellant Trust before compensation was deposited, violating Section 52(7) of the RUI Act; and (3) compensation for the Nangli Kota lands was not paid within the timelines set by Sections 60A(3) and (4).

“Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petition filed before the High Court, despite the significant delay, raised substantial questions regarding the legality of the land acquisition proceedings. The alleged patent illegality in the acquisition process justify the condonation of delay in this exceptional case”, the Court observed.

The Court examined the procedural requirements of Section 52. For the Nangli Kota lands, it found that although individual notices under Section 52(2) were not served, the respondents' participation in the proceedings indicated they had constructive notice. As a result, the notification under Section 52(1) was upheld. For the Moongaska lands, however, it found that two of the original landowners and their heirs did not participate in the proceedings. This lack of proper notice under Section 52(2) violated their right to be heard, rendering the notification under Section 52(1) invalid, the Court held.

Regarding compensation, the Court noted that compensation for the Nangli Kota lands was agreed upon at Rs. 90,000. Despite taking possession of the land in 1980 and transferring it to the appellant trust in 1981, the compensation was only deposited with the reference court in 1997—more than a decade later. The Court ruled that this delay violated Section 60A(4) of the RUI Act, which mandates timely payment within six months. The prolonged delay is a breach of Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to property as a constitutional and human right, the Court said.

“This Court in the case of Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2598 has held that the right to property is to be considered not only a constitutional or statutory right but also a human right and therefore, time is of the essence in determination and payment of compensation by the State, otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300A of the Constitution”, the Court observed.

The Court emphasized that Sections 60A(3) and 60A(4) mandated strict adherence to timelines for determining and paying compensation. Non-compliance with these provisions invalidated acquisitions under the RUI Act.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 14473 of 2024 and connected appeals

Case Title – Urban Improvement Trust v. Smt. Vidhya Devi and Ors.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1008