DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

          [2024] 6 S.C.R. 714 : 2024 INSC 415

          Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another
                          v.
              State of Bihar and Others
                (Civil Appeal No 6351 of 2024)
                          13 May 2024
         [J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

                    Issue for Consideration
A land owned by the appellant was acquired and he did not receive
any compensation for the same. Before the Division Bench of the
High Court, the appellant was informed that value of land was Rs.
4,68,099/-. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the
Letters Patent Appeal by asking the appellant to file an appropriate
application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the
value of the land. Whether the High Court committed any error in
passing the impugned order.

                           Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In
the year 1977, a land owned by appellant was acquired –
Compensation was not paid – The Single Judge of the
High Court rejected the writ petition on the count that the
petition had been filed after a period of forty-two years of the
acquisition – However, the Division Bench of the High Court
asked the appellant to file an appropriate application before
the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the
land assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- – Correctness:
Held: The High Court in its impugned order has stated that the
appellant herein has been informed about the value of the land
assessed at Rs 4,68,099 – There is no reason as to on what basis
this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time this amount
came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment of such
amount – The High Court should have enquired with the State as
to why in the year 1977 itself, that is the year in which the land
came to be acquired, the award for compensation was not passed
– The High Court did not enquire why it took forty-two years for
the State to determine the figure of Rs 4,68,099 – The High Court
should also have asked the State the basis of the determination
of the amount towards compensation – It is a well settled position
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                               715

    Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others


     of law that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the
     owner of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even
     file an appeal for the enhancement of the same – The High Court
     proceeded on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been
     assessed and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate
     application and get the amount disbursed in his favour – The
     approach adopted by the High Court is not convincing – The State
     cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance
     with the procedure established by law – The obligation to pay
     compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A of
     the Constitution, can be inferred in that Article – The Single Judge
     of the High Court rejected the writ petition only on the ground of
     delay – It is settled that delay and laches cannot be raised in a
     case of a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shock
     the judicial conscience of the court – In a case where the demand
     for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise
     its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it – In
     the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court
     is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh
     consideration. [Paras 13, 14, 18, 25, 26, 29]

                               Case Law Cited
     Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai [2005]
     Supp. 3 SCR 388 : (2005) 7 SCC 627; N. Padmamma v. S.
     Ramakrishna Reddy [2008] 9 SCR 535 : (2008) 15 SCC 517;
     Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2011] 12 SCR
     191 : (2011) 9 SCC 354; Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of
     Gujarat [1994] Supp. 1 SCR 807 : (1995) Supp 1 SCC 596;
     Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC [2012] 13 SCR 29 : (2013) 1 SCC
     353 – relied on.
     K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2011] 13 SCR
     636 : (2011) 9 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar [2011]
     14 SCR 211 : (2011) 10 SCC 404; Vidya Devi v. The State of
     Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC 569;
     P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [1975] 2 SCR 356 : (1975)
     1 SCC 152 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Constitution of India.
716                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                              List of Keywords
       Acquisition of land; Payment of compensation; Assessment
       of the value of land; Delay in filing petition; Determination of
       compensation; Dispossession from property; Obligation to pay
       compensation; Delay and laches; Promotion of justice.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6351 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2023 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 997 of 2019
                          Appearances for Parties
       Dharnidhar Jha, Sr. Adv., Jayesh Gaurav, Ms. Diksha Ojha, Ishwar
       Chandra Roy, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Anshul Narayan, Prem Prakash, Advs. for the Respondents.
                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order
1      Application for substitution to bring on record the legal heirs of the
       first petitioner is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.
2      Leave granted.
3      This appeal arises from a order passed by the High Court of Judicature
       at Patna dated 7 February 2023 in the Letters Patent Appeal No
       997 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 8408 of 2019 by
       which the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters
       Patent Appeal by asking the appellant herein to file an appropriate
       application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the
       value of the land assessed at Rs 4,68,099.
4      The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:
       In the year 1976, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
       Act was issued for the purpose of construction of State Highway as
       notified by the State of Bihar. The land owned by the appellant herein
       was included in Section 4 notification referred to above. Sometime
       in 1977, the land of the appellant was acquired. However, it is the
       case of the appellant that not a single penny was paid to him towards
       compensation.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          717

    Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others


5    The appellant preferred an appropriate application addressed to the
     State Government immediately after his land came to be acquired
     and possession was taken over in the year 1977 for payment of
     compensation. It is the case of the appellant that State did not even
     pass any award of compensation and kept the matter in limbo.
6    Years passed by and the appellant kept on requesting the authorities to
     pass an appropriate award and pay the amount towards compensation.
7    As the respondents did not pay heed to the say of the appellant,
     he was left with no other option but to file a writ petition in the High
     Court of Patna. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single
     Judge and by order dated 19 July 2019 rejected the same only on
     the count that the petition had been filed after a period of forty-two
     years of the acquisition. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned
     Single Judge also observed that the appellant had failed to submit
     any paper or notification in connection with acquisition of his land
     for the purpose of payment of compensation.
8    Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge
     rejecting his writ petition, the appellant went in appeal. The appeal
     came to be disposed of by a Division Bench in the following terms:
           “A hard copy of the supplementary affidavit on behalf
           of the State has been filed across the Board.
           Let it be taken on record.
           In view of the categorical stand of the State that the
           land of the appellants had been consumed and that the
           State is ready to compensate the appellants, nothing
           remains in this appeal to be decided.
           The appellants have been informed about the value of
           the land has been assessed at Rs 4,68,099/- .
           All that the appellants have to do is to file an application
           before the concerned authority as to how the amount
           shall be apportioned between him and his son.
           It is expected that the decision in that regard by the State
           Authority shall be taken without any delay as already
           the matter has become five decades old.
           The appeal stands disposed of.”
718                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


9      Mr. Dharnidhar Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
       appellant submitted that the State conceded to the fact that the
       land of the appellant had been acquired and was put to use for the
       purpose the same was acquired. He would submit that if the State
       thought fit to acquire the land of his client, then it was obligatory on
       the part of the State to pass an appropriate award determining the
       amount towards compensation. He would submit that it is not the
       case that the appellant herein was lethargic in asserting his rights,
       but rather kept on requesting the authorities concerned to determine
       the amount towards compensation and pay the same.
10     On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State of
       Bihar submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law could
       be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the
       impugned order. He would submit that it is not in dispute that the land
       of the appellant was acquired for a public purpose, but at the same
       time, it was the duty of the appellant to pursue the matter further
       for the purpose of getting appropriate compensation determined in
       accordance with law.
11     Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
       having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
       falls for our consideration is whether the High Court committed any
       error in passing the impugned order.
12     We take notice of the fact that the Single Judge of the High Court
       thought fit to reject the writ petition only on the ground of delay and
       in appeal, the appellate court disposed of the appeal asking the
       appellant herein to file an application before the concerned authority
       for disbursement of the amount of compensation.
13     We take notice of two things: First, the High Court in its impugned
       order has stated that the appellant herein has been informed about
       the value of the land assessed at Rs 4,68,099. We fail to understand
       on what basis this figure has been arrived at; at what point of time
       this amount came to be assessed; and the basis for the assessment
       of such amount. Secondly, the order of the High Court could be
       said to be a non-speaking order. Although at this stage, the learned
       counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that it was an
       order obtained with the consent of the parties, yet there is nothing
       to indicate that any consent was given by the appellant herein to
       pass such an order.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          719

     Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others


14    The first thing that the High Court should have enquired with the State
      is as to why in the year 1977 itself, that is the year in which the land
      came to be acquired, the award for compensation was not passed.
      The High Court should have enquired why it took forty-two years
      for the State to determine the figure of Rs 4,68,099. The High Court
      should also have asked the State the basis of the determination of
      the amount towards compensation. It is a well settled position of law
      that after the award towards compensation is passed, if the owner
      of the land is not satisfied with the quantum, he can even file an
      appeal for the enhancement of the same. The High Court proceeded
      on the footing that the amount of Rs 4,68,099 has been assessed
      and it is now for the appellant to file an appropriate application and
      get the amount disbursed in his favour.
15    We are not convinced but rather disappointed with the approach of
      the High Court while disposing of the appeal.
16    There are many issues arising in this litigation and the High Court
      should have taken little pains to ask the State why it made the
      appellant run from pillar to post. It is sad to note that the appellant
      passed away fighting for his right to receive compensation. Now the
      legal heirs of the appellant are pursuing this litigation.
17    In 1976, when the land of the appellant came to be acquired the
      right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 in
      Part III of the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the right to private
      property, which could not be deprived without due process of law
      and upon just and fair compensation.
18    The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the
      Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it
      continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional
      right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides
      that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of
      law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in
      accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to
      pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A,
      can be inferred in that Article. [See: K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State
      of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1]
19    In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai reported
      in (2005) 7 SCC 627, this Court held that:
720                                                          [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            “6. … Having regard to the provisions contained in Article
            300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power
            of “eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property
            of a person by acquiring the same but the same must
            be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation
            therefor must be paid.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)
20     In N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy reported in (2008) 15
       SCC 517, this Court held that:
            “21.If the right of property is a human right as also a
            constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except
            in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution
            protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to
            divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of
            Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly
            construed.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)
21     In Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported in (2011)
       9 SCC 354, this Court recognised the right to property as a basic
       human right in the following words:
            “30. It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different
            political thinkers that some amount of property right is an
            indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic
            oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view
            that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of
            property. “Property must be secured, else liberty cannot
            subsist” was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the
            view that property itself is the seed-bed which must be
            conserved if other constitutional values are to flourish, is
            the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)
22     In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995
       Supp (1) SCC 596, this Court held as follows:
            “48. … In other words, Article 300-A only limits the
            powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          721

     Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another v. State of Bihar and Others


           his property save by authority of law. There has to be no
           deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by
           any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession
           under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law,
           there is no deprivation.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)
23    In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353,
      this Court held that the State must comply with the procedure for
      acquisition, requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.
      The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law cannot
      arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution.
24    This Court in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2011)
      10 SCC 404 held that the right to property is now considered to be
      not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right.
      Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights
      such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human
      rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension.
25    We regret to state that the learned Single Judge of the High Court
      did not deem fit even to enquire with the State whether just and fair
      compensation was paid to the appellant or not. The learned Single
      Judge rejected the writ petition only on the ground of delay. As held
      by this court in Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
      reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569, delay and laches cannot be raised
      in a case of a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances
      shock the judicial conscience of the court. The condition of delay is
      a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously
      and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of the case. As held
      by this Court, it would depend upon the breach of fundamental rights,
      and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There
      is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their
      constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
26    In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a
      constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to
      promote justice, and not defeat it. [See: P.S. Sadasivaswamy v.
      State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152]
27    In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC reported in (2013) 1 SCC 353, this
      Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows:
722                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            “11. There are authorities which state that delay and
            laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of
            these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant
            of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago,
            recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities
            and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true
            that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay
            and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his
            fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226
            of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different
            scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over
            possession of the land belonging to the appellants without
            any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly
            for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must
            either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition,
            or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.”
                                                   (Emphasis supplied)
28     In such circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that
       we should set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court
       and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
29     In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
       impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
       matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. Letters
       Patent Appeal No 997 of 2019 is restored to its original file. The High
       Court shall hear both the sides and pass an appropriate order in
       accordance with what has been observed by this Court in this order.
       We request the High Court to decide the matter within a period of
       two months from today.
30     Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

       Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan                    Result of the case:
                                                               Appeal allowed.