Holding

The State had no legal authority to deprive the respondent of his property, and the High Court's direction to pay compensation was correct.

Summary

Manohar, a landowner, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction for the State of Uttar Pradesh to determine and pay compensation for land that had been taken and on which the State constructed office buildings. The High Court ordered the State to pay compensation within three months, finding no evidence that the land had been lawfully acquired. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the land had been acquired and compensation was either paid or pending. The Supreme Court examined the correspondence and records, concluding that there was no proof of any legal acquisition or payment of compensation. It held that the deprivation of Manohar's property was without authority of law, violating Article 300A, and that the High Court had correctly exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State's appeal and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000.

Issues considered

Whether the State's deprivation of the respondent's land without authority of law violates Article 300A of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court was justified in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct payment of compensation.
Whether the State had any legal basis or evidence of acquisition and compensation for the land in question.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 300A

Subjects

property rightscompensationland acquisitionArticle 300AArticle 226writ jurisdictionexemplary costsState liability

Judgment

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. A
v.
MANO HAR

DECEMBER 15, 2004
B
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articles 300A and 226--Land owner deprived of his lands which were
required by State-No compensation paid-Writ petition by land-owner for C
direction to State to determine compensation-Allowed by High Court-
Held, there is no evidence to indicate that lands of the owner were acquired
in accordance with law-High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under
Article 226--ln view of the manner in which the State dealt with the matter,
appeal of State dismissed with exemplary costs. D

Respondent-landowner filed a writ petition before the High Court
praying for a direction to the appellant-State to determine and pay him
CQmpensation for his lands wherefrom he was forcibly dispossessed and
over which the State constructed its office buildings. It was the case of
the petitioner that in spite of r'epeated appeals, he was not paid com· E
pensation by the State. There is evidence on record indicating that the
lands were recorded in the name ofthe petitioner and were not acquired,
but after the consolidation operation, the State was recorded in posses-
sion thereof. The High Court allowed the writ petition.
F
Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Court

HELD: 1. There is no evidence to show that the land of the respondent
had been taken over or acquired in any manner known to law or that he
had ever been paid any compensation in respect of such acquisition. The
case proj.ected before the Court by the appellants is utterly untenable G
... and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least
regard to being a welfare State. The State authorities have been resisting
a just and reasonable claim of the respondent. [914-F]
.-
1.2. This is a case of utter lack of legal authority for deprivation H
911
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of the respondent's property by the State Government This case was
an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court was some-
what liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. In view
of the intransigence displayed by the appellants, the appeal is dismissed
B with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000. (915-B-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1058 of
2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.99 of the Allahabad High
C Court in C.M.W.P. No. 27449 of 1992.

S. W.A. Qadri, Kamlendra Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Dubey and
Ms. Rashmi Singh for the Appellants.

D Anish Dayal, Abhishek Mishra and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Re-
spondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. : The respondent filed a writ petition before
E the High Court of judicature of Allahabad seeking a writ of Mandamus to
the appellant- State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers to determine the
compensation in respect of his land bearing plot no. 3 Ka (0.29 acres), 4
(0.37 acres) and 3 kha (l.01 acres) in village Chakiya Bhagwanpur, Tehsil
Lalganj, District Azamgarh, which, according to the respondent, had been
F taken away forcibly without following any process of law. It was the specific
case of the respondent that he had been dispossessed from his land and the
land had been taken by the appellants without payment of any compensation
and further that the appellants had put up building and structures on the land
sometime in 1955 and that despite repeated appeals made by him nobody
was prepared to pay compensation. He enclosed along with the writ petition
G a letterno. 73/S. T.D.M-91 dated 9/10.4.91 written by the Collector, Azamgarh
to the Sepcial Land Acquisition Officer Azamgarh to the following effect:

"Please refer to the application of Shri Manohar s/o Raghunath,
Mauja Kharga Bhagwanpur, Block Lalganj (enclosed). He has
H stated that the compensation for the land acquired for development
STATE v. MANOHAR [SR1KR1SHNA, J.] 913

Block, Lalganj has not yet been paid even though the construction A
of the Development Block has been done in the year 1955.

After looking into matter action be taken to make payment of the
compensation and I may be informed about the position."
B
This was replied to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his
letter dated 5.8.91 in which he says thus :

"Please refer to this officer letter no.1159/Aa.S.L.A.D.(J.V.) dated
23.3.1991; and letter no.28(2) eight S.L.A. O.(J.V.) dated 16.4.91
on the above subject under which Shri Manohar Ram r/o Chaki~ c
Bhagwanpur Pargana Devgaon Tehsil- Lalganj Special Power of
Attorney Shrilal s/o Bhoval made a complaint to the collection for
non-payment of the compensation of the land acquired for con-
struction of Development Block, Lalganj. The B.D.O. Lalganj has
informed that the Development Block, Lalganj was established on D
16.1.1955 at 1.533 acres of land.

Enclosing an attested copy of the Khatauni of 1377 F with his
Application dated 20.6.91 Shri Manohar has given an application
that his land no. 3ka, 3kaa, 4ka has not been acquired but during
consolidation operation the Block Office being already in existence E
there, his name was deleted by the Department of consolidation.
The copy of the intkhab Khatauni was verified from the papers
preserved by the Record Room and the entries of the Khatauni were
found to be correct. Even in the office there is no reference of any
proposal for land acquisition. F

Thus from the records and circumstantial evidence it is evident that
the land of Development Block, Lalganj has not been acquired and
on the basis of the local position during consolidation operation the
Asstt. Consolidation Officer stated the name of the office' of De-
velopment Block in Records. Under these circumstances, it is re- G
quested that the compensation of the land of development block
office Lalganj may be paid by mutual settlement.

Under the above circumstances, this office has no concern with this
case." H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A The grievance of the respondent before the High Court was that his
name was high-handedly deleted from the revenue record and the revenue
record thereafter showed the name of the appellants. He was dispossessed
from the land and no compensation was paid, nor were any steps taken in
law for acquiring the land. The respondent demanded an amount of Rs.10
B lakhs as compensation with interest from the date of dispossession.

The appellants appeared through counsel before the High Court and
produced certain records. In view of the correspondence, to which we have
referred, between the officers of the State, the High Court came to the
conclusion that the case made out by the respondent was acceptable and that
c the State should be directed to take steps to pay compensation to the
petitioner within 3 months with appropriate interest in accordance with the
law. The High Court contemptuously dismissed the arguments of the coun-
sel for the appellant that the petitioner had already been paid the compen-
sation but that the records evidencing such payment were not available as
D they had been 'weeded out' due to the delay on the part of the respondent
in approaching the Court.

As a matter of fact, the appellants were unable to produce even a scrap
of evidence indicating that the land of the respondent had been taken over
E or acquired in any manner known to law or that he had ever been paid any
compensation in respect of such acquisition. That the land was thereafter
constructed upon, is not def!ied.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied
that the case projected before the Court by the appellants is utterly untenable
F and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least regard
to being a welfare State. When we pointed out to the learned counsel that,
at this stage at least, the State should be gracious enough to accept its
mistake and promptly pay the compensation to the respondent, the State has
taken an intractable attitude and persisted in opposing what appears to be
G a just and reasonable claim of the respondent.

Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available to the
citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article 19(1 )( f) was
deleted by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, Article 300A has been
H placed in the Constitution, which reads as follows:
STATE v. MANOHAR [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 915

"300A - Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority A
of law - No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law."

This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority for deprivation
of the respondent's property by the appellants who are State authorities. In
B
our view, this case was an eminently fit one for exercising the writ juris-
diction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view,
the High Court was somewhat liberal in not imposing exemplary costs op
the appellants. We would have perhaps followed suit, but for the intransi-
gence displayed before us.
c
In the result, we dismiss the appeal with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000.
The compensation payable as directed by the High Court, together with the
costs directed by us, shall be paid within a period of 3 months from today.

The respondent shall also be paid interest on the compensation amount D
from 22.2.1999 till date of payment@ 9% per annum.

A compliance report shall be filed by the appellants with the Registrar
General of this Court. The appellants are charged personally with the duty
of ensuring compliance with the order of this Court failing which they shall
be answerable to this Court in contempt jurisdiction. E

, .. Copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Chief Secretary, State of
.. Uttar Pradesh for his information and appropriate action.

R.P. Appeal dismissed. F