Right to property can’t be brushed away merely due to delay: Supreme Court

Holding that right to protect private property can’t be brushed away merely due to delay, the Supreme Court has condoned a 21-year delay on the part of original land owners in a land acquisition case from Alwar, Rajasthan.

“While it is true that the courts have consistently held that undue delay in approaching the court can be a ground for refusing relief, the courts have also recognised that in exceptional cases, where the impugned action is patently illegal or affects fundamental rights, the delay must be condoned,” a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said.

The verdict would benefit farmers whose cases have been dismissed by high courts on account of delay in launching proceedings against acquisition.

Citing earlier decisions of the top court, the Bench said, “The decisions of this court have consistently held that the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases of acquisition by the State. Therefore, the delay in approaching the court, while a significant factor, cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect the right to property enshrined in Article 300A.

“The court must balance the need for finality in legal proceedings with the need to rectify injustice. The right of an individual to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay and laches,” it said.

It dismissed Urban Improvement Trust’s appeals challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s verdict quashing acquisition of three plots (measuring two bigha two biswa and two bigha, 18 biswa and three bigha and nine biswa) of some farmers in July 1976 under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 in Alwar district and a notification to this effect was issued in 1977.

The acquisition was challenged by the landowners before the Rajasthan High Court in 1998 on the ground that the legal requirements under the RUI Act were not complied with and the possession of the land in question was never handed over to the state government. The High Court on October 29, 2009 quashed the acquisition proceedings.

Contending that the landowners participated in the acquisition proceedings and were aware of the notifications, the state government and the Trust submitted that service of individual notices under Section 52(2) was not necessary. They also argued that a delay of 21 years in challenging the acquisition proceedings rendered the landowners’ petitions unsustainable.

After analysing various provisions of the Act, the top court said, “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 justifies the condonation of delay in this exceptional case.”

It also faulted the state government for delay in payment of compensation to the landowners, saying the prolonged delay amounted to a breach of Article 300A of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right to property as a constitutional and human right.