Facts of the case
Prior to becoming a state highway, the in-question route was a tiny country road that was expanded without providing the petitioners with any sort of compensation. The highway was referred to as Jalna-Wadigodri.
According to the petitioners, the existing road width is roughly 12 meters. Without needing to purchase land, the respondents simply produced a letter of award and started extending the road by 30 meters.
The authorities failed to start acquisition proceedings while transforming the narrow route into Highway No. 176, depriving the owners of the seized lands of compensation. The route in question from Sillod to Wadigodri is being upgraded by the respondent’s stage by stage.
The petitioners are worried about the Dhangar Pimpri to Wadigodri phase because the authorities are trying to seize their farms by force under the cover of a decision about adjoining road lands that don’t need to be purchased.
According to the petitioners, state agents cannot take a landowner’s property without following the relevant legal procedures. Since all of the petitioners share the similar circumstances, the respondent authorities’ use of the Government Resolution to forcefully seize possession of the petitioners’ land for road widening is a violation of Article 300A.
Instead of building new roads, the Central Authorities assert that they are restoring old highways with the same alignment and bringing them up to National Highway standards. Local farmers will profit from the road’s improvement to National Highway standards since it will enable them to move agricultural products from rural and distant places to urban areas.
The principles of delay and laches prohibit petitioners, according to the State Authorities. The statute of limitations also applies. Additionally, the roadworks has started and is almost finished. For the benefit of the general public, the remaining work must be finished.
Issues raised in the case
The following matters were brought up in front of the Bombay High Court:
1. Are the authorities increasing the width of National Highway No. 753-H from 12 to 30 meters without following the proper legal procedures?
2. Does Article 300 A contain a compensation obligation?
Arguments presented by both parties
According to the petitioners’ knowledgeable attorney, it would not be legal for the State Government/Central Government Authority to seize control of any landowner without following the rules of the law. A flagrant breach of Article 300A of the Indian Constitution was committed by the respondent authorities when they forcibly took control of the petitioners’ property to enlarge the road.
They maintained that the petitioners are entitled to equitable compensation under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. The government does not have the right to seize the neighboring landowners’ properties without first going through the legal process by simply changing the status of the road.
The petitioners claim that the road in question is around 12 meters wide in their separate villages, but the respondents-authorities claim that the road is about 30 meters wide.
The skilled counsel for the petitioners steadfastly insisted that the improvement of the road is the purpose of the work being done through their neighborhoods. The government is widening the road under the pretense of enhancing the road.
As stated in the National Highway and learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India Pleader of the Maharashtra State Government/State Authority’s discovered comments, the authorities are allegedly rehabilitating an old road rather than creating a new one. A state highway is becoming a national highway in this process.
The construction of the road is only 30 meters away, according to the road development plan. There is no need for the petitioners to be concerned about land acquisition because the road would be upgraded within 30 meters. They claimed that the petitioners were seeking payment for property they had long since acquired as a result of turning a road into a state highway.
Judgment
Based on the discussion and considerations previously. In order to measure the road in question at the various villages with both sides present, the authorities need to give explicit instructions to the authorities. Measurements of National Highway No. 753-H (previously known as State Highway No. 176) at the villages of Shahapur, Dadegaon, Dhakalgaon, and Math Tanda by the respondents demographic shall be conducted as soon as possible, preferably within four months, by appropriate authority in the presence of both sides.
The petitioners’ neighboring lands will not be acquired if the road’s width in the respective villages is confirmed to be 30 meters at the time of measurement. The State and Central authorities are required by law to purchase the land in the quantity required by them if the road’s width at the time of measuring is less than 30 meters. The District Collector of Jalna will be in charge of overseeing the road measurement exercise in the aforementioned villages to avoid any misunderstandings.
The aforementioned directive has led to the dismissal of these writ petitions.
The bench has clearly determined that under a welfare state, statutory bodies must not only pay fair compensation to those who have been harmed but also assist in their rehabilitation. The uprooted people would be forced to become vagabonds or take part in anti-national activities if their commitments weren’t fulfilled because their mistreatment had given rise to these sentiments in them. Their civil rights have undoubtedly been protected by this expression.
In the case of Pradyumna Mukund Kokil v. State of Maharashtra and others, the Apex Court ruled that it would not be appropriate for a government body or any State authority to take possession of someone’s land without following due process of law. It also ruled that the authority should not use a citizen’s land even if the citizen has given permission for the use of his land by the government body.
Analysis of the judgment
A landowner’s property cannot be seized by the government or state authorities without following the correct legal procedures. No one’s property may be taken away from them without their consent, according to Article 300A of the Constitution. The respondent authorities’ use of the Government Resolution to demonstrate the forcible control of the petitioners’ property for road widening is a breach of Article 300A.
Although it remained a human right in a welfare state and a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, the right to property was no longer considered a basic right as a result of the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act of 1978. No one’s property may be seized from them without a valid court order, according to Article 300A. A citizen’s property cannot be taken by the state unless the right legal steps are taken.
When and how the delay began, along with the fundamental right that was violated and the requested remedy. It’s not that after a certain length of time has passed, the courts cannot use their authority under Article 226 or that there is never a situation in which the courts cannot get involved in a case. In some situations, the need for justice could be so great that the High court feels obligated to get involved despite the delay. The court’s discretion would also be involved, which would need to be exercised honestly and fairly in order to advance justice rather than stand in the way of it.
There is no doubt that the respondents/authorities must follow the law. Any choice made in a society where the rule of law prevails shouldn’t be arbitrary. The Indian Constitution requires the courts to use their extraordinary writ authority in the appropriate circumstances to restrain the State Authorities from acting arbitrarily.
Conclusion
We might draw the conclusion that in a society where the rule of law prevails, there should be no room for arbitrariness in any decision. In this instance, there was no concrete proof that the road was 30 meters wide, and the petitioners’ holdings were not up for acquisition. When the property is likely to be acquired, they should behave like model litigants, upholding the rights of petitioners and according to the rules of court. Even if a citizen has given permission for the government authority to use his land, the authority should not take unfair advantage of that permission when compensating the citizen when land is acquired. It would be improper for a government body or any state authority to take possession of someone’s land without adhering to due process of law.
Contributed By: Diwanshi Arya (Intern)