Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Supreme Court of India · 8 January 2020 · 2 judges
The State cannot take a citizen's land without following law, cannot claim title by adverse possession against its own citizen, and was directed to pay compensation as a deemed acquisition despite a delay of decades.
Facts
In 1967 to 1968 the State of Himachal Pradesh took over the appellant's land for the Nadaun to Sujanpur road without any acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation. The appellant, an illiterate widow from a rural area, did not claim compensation. In 2004 some neighbouring landowners whose land was taken for the same road filed a writ petition, and in 2007 the High Court directed that their land be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; proceedings were started in 2008 only for them. In 2010 the appellant filed a writ petition seeking compensation. The State admitted using her land but pleaded adverse possession after 42 years, oral consent, and delay and laches. The High Court held that disputed questions of limitation could not be decided in writ proceedings and left her to a civil suit; her review petition was dismissed. She appealed to the Supreme Court.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the State could take over the appellant's land without acquisition proceedings or compensation.
- Whether the State could claim title to the land by adverse possession against its own citizen.
- Whether the appellant's claim was barred by delay and laches.
What the Court held
- In 1967 the right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31. After the Forty Fourth Amendment it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right. The State cannot dispossess a citizen except in accordance with the procedure established by law, and the obligation to pay compensation can be inferred in Article 300A.
- The State's plea that the appellant or her predecessors had orally consented to the taking was baseless; there was a complete lack of authority and legal sanction for divesting her of the land.
- A welfare State cannot be permitted to plead adverse possession to perfect its title over land taken from its own citizens.
- Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action or where the circumstances shock the judicial conscience. The cause of action here was continuing, and the Court, under Articles 136 and 142, directed compensation on the terms awarded to the neighbouring landowner, treating it as a deemed acquisition, with costs.
Why it matters
The judgment holds that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, is a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right, that the State cannot rely on adverse possession against its own citizens, and that delay and laches do not bar relief where the cause of action is continuing. It used Articles 136 and 142 to grant compensation as a deemed acquisition more than fifty years after the land was taken.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“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 right2 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 State being a welfare State, cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in the present case.”
“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. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case.”
“The cause of action in the present case is a continuing one, since the Appellant was compulsorily expropriated of her property in 1967 without legal sanction or following due process of law. The present case is one where the demand for justice is so compelling since the State has admitted that the land was taken over without initiating acquisition proceedings, or any procedure known to law.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 300A, Constitution
- Article 31, Constitution (as it stood in 1967, before the Forty Fourth Amendment)
- Article 136, Constitution
- Article 142, Constitution
Related judgments
- Follows K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011)“The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article.” (page 5)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. 60-61 of 2020
- Decided
- 8 January 2020
- Bench
- Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court by Indu Malhotra, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.