Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

52. This Special Leave Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to be paid by the State of Haryana for filing a totally frivolous petition and unnecessarily wasting the time of the Court and demonstrating its evil design of grabbing the properties of lawful owners in a clandestine manner. The costs be deposited within four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. In this petition, we did not issue notice to the defendants, therefore, we direct that the costs be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority for utilizing the same to enable the poor litigants to contest their cases." The Constitution Bench in K.T.Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. State of Karnataka 2011 (9) SCC 1, while examining the 6 of 13 provisions of Article 300-A, which was inserted by the 44th Amendment and looking at the principles of Eminent Domain, held that the payment of compensation is a constitutional requirement. Relevant portions of the judgment reads as under:

"118. We have found that the requirement of public purpose is invariably the rule for depriving a person of his property, violation of which is amenable to judicial review. Let us now examine whether the requirement of payment of compensation is the rule after the deletion of Article 31(2). Payment of compensation amount is a constitutional requirement under Article 30(1A) and under the 2nd proviso to Article 31A(1), unlike Article 300A. After the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, the constitutional obligation to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property primarily depends upon the terms of the statute and the legislative policy. Article 300A, however, does not prohibit the payment of just compensation when a person is deprived of his property, but the question is whether a person is entitled to get compensation, as a matter of right, in the absence of any stipulation in the statute, depriving him of his property.
"28. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. It is a case of the respondents that the road was constructed without any order, scheme and payment of compensation to the land- owners, somewhere in the year 1956-57. At that time right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution of India as it was before 44th Amendment of 1978 i.e. original Article 31.
29. A classical doctrine of Eminent Domain gives the State unfettered power to acquire the private property. This doctrine enunciates that the government has inherent right to take and appropriate the private property belonging to individual citizens for the public use. It is offspring of political necessity. This right of the State rests upon the famous 11 of 13 maximSalus populi est superema lex- which means that the welfare of the people or the public is the paramount law and also on the maxim necessita public major est quam, which means "public necessity, is greater than private". This power is subject to limitations provided in the Constitution under the original Article 31 and new Article 300-A.
31. The word 'law' as used in Article 300-A makes it clear that the deprivation of the property can only be made by the authority of law, be it an Act of Parliament or State Legislature or a rule or statutory order having force of law, and not by an executive fiat or an order.
32. As per the version of State, road was constructed somewhere six decades ago i.e. prior to the 44th Amendment. At that time right to property was a fundamental right. Thus, the grabing of the property of the plaintiffs was unconstitutional and illegal. Even after omitting of Article 31 by way of 44th Amendment, the right to property of the plaintiffs does not cease to exist and still the same is available as a constitutional right.