Land acquisition, compensation, fundamental rights, right to property, due process of law, eminent domain, delay and laches, judicial discretion, fresh consideration
Dispute regarding the compensation for land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant's land was acquired in 1976 for the construction of a State Highway, but despite repeated requests, no compensation was paid. The appellant approached the High Court seeking relief, which was initially rejected on grounds of delay.
The appellant's land was included in a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act in 1976. Possession was taken in 1977, but compensation was not paid. The appellant repeatedly requested compensation from the authorities without success.
Proceedings in High Court: The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was rejected due to delay. On appeal, the High Court directed the appellant to file an application for compensation, stating that the State was willing to compensate.
Arguments: The appellant argued that the State had a duty to determine and pay compensation promptly after acquisition. The State countered that it was the appellant's responsibility to pursue the matter for compensation.
Analysis by Supreme Court: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach, noting that it failed to inquire into the delay and basis for compensation determination. It emphasized the constitutional right to property and the obligation of the State to pay just and fair compensation.
Legal Precedents: The judgment cited several legal precedents emphasizing the importance of property rights and the State's duty to act in accordance with the law.
Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to decide the case within two months.
Conclusion: The importance of property rights and the State's obligation to pay compensation promptly. It underscores the need for judicial scrutiny in cases involving land acquisition to ensure justice for affected parties.
Case Title: Dharnidhar Mishra (D) And Another vs State Of Bihar And Others
Citation: 2024 LawText (SC) (5) 133
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6351 Of 2024
Advocate(s): Dharnidhar Jha, Jayesh Gaurav, Diksha Ojha, Ishwar Chandra Roy, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Anshul Narayan, Prem Prakash
Date of Decision: 2024-05-13