Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Chameli Singh And Others Etc. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 1995
11. So far as Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P
and another [(1996)2 SCC 549), it was a case of compulsory
acquisition of land by the State for public purpose in exercise of
its power of eminent domain. Their Lordships opined that exercise
of power of eminent domain does not amount to deprivation of
right to livelihood (Article 21 of the Constitution of India).
Acquisition of land was in accordance with the procedure
depending upon its compulsory nature, because of involvement of
public interest. In the light of provision for payment of solatium to
the owner who declines to voluntarily part with the possession of
land as enunciated under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
as also compensation for the land acquired at the price prevailing
as on the date of publishing preliminary notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, question of deprivation of right to
livelihood would not ensue. On account of displacing the owner or
occupier from enjoying the fruits of the land, interest is also
payable apart from recompensating the loss of enjoyment of
WA.2865/07 & 238/08 16
property, therefore, it does not amount to deprivation of right to
livelihood, was the clear finding.
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty on 15 December, 1995
In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty
[(1996)1 SCC 490], while referring to Article 21 of the Constitution
Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India and others (AIR 1984 SC 802), it was a lis pertaining to
certain workmen living in bondage and under inhuman
conditions. In the said case Their Lordships said, in a public
interest litigation of such nature the Government should welcome
an enquiry by the Court into the inhuman conditions of the
workmen living as bondaged labours. Public interest litigation was
described as a challenge and an opportunity to the Government
and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful to the
deprived and vulnerable sections of the society resulting in
assurance of social and economic justice to its subjects. In that
context, Their Lordships, while referring to Article 21 of the
Constitution, proceeded to opine that Article 21 not only assures
the right to livelihood, but it assures the right to live with human
dignity free from exploitation. Their Lordships emphasises that
the State is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is
no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly
when he belongs to the weaker sections of the community and is
unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful
WA.2865/07 & 238/08 17
opponent who is exploiting them.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 46 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ananda Behera And Another vs The State Of Orissa And Another on 27 October, 1955
In the case of Ananda Behera and another v. State
of Orissa and another (AIR 1956 SC 17), an agreement was
entered into granting a right to catch and carry away fish from
WA.2865/07 & 238/08 20
specific portions of the lake over a specified future period for
certain amounts. This right obtained as a licence, was to enter on
the land coupled with a grant to catch and carry away fish. The
petitioner in the said case had entered into a contract with an ex-
proprietor of an estate prior to its vesting in the State of Orissa.
That contract permitted the petitioner to pay certain amounts for
certain period to grant licence to catch and carry away fish from
specific portion of lake situated in the said estate. Subsequent to
its vesting with the State, the State of Orissa refused to recognise
these licences and proceeded to re-auction the rights. At that
point of time, they approached the Court seeking writ under
Article 32 of the Constitution contending that their fundamental
rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution were
about to be infringed. Their Lordships held that even assuming
that 'contract' is 'property' within the meaning of Articles 19(1)(f)
and 31(1) of the Constitution, no question under those Articles
would arise because the State refused to recognise the existence
of the contract and it does not amount to confiscation or taking
possession of the contract as such, hence, the Writ Petition came
to be dismissed.