Allahabad HC warns of ‘heavy penalty’ on State for unauthorised land utilisation without due acquisition process; Orders compensation for landowner

Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Level Committee, which had rejected the petitioner’s claim for compensation for land used by State Authorities, the division bench of Manoj Kumar Gupta and Anish Kumar Gupta*, JJ. ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land utilised by the State Authorities, and the compensation must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Background

The petitioner purchased the land through a sale deed dated 02-12-2009. Based on this deed, the petitioner was registered as the bhumidhar with transferable rights in the revenue records. The land was adjacent to a chak road, which was initially recorded as 2.5 meters (8.25 feet) wide in the revenue records. The petitioner claims that the road was widened, utilizing 0.033 hectares of her land without compensation.

After filing an RTI application with the Public Works Department (‘PWD’) to inquire about any land acquisition proceedings for the road widening, the petitioner was informed that there was no record of acquisition. The petitioner continued to send representations but did not receive any responses. Subsequently, she filed Writ Petition which led to a direction for the District Magistrate of Bareilly to refer the matter to the District Level Committee for determining the entitlement of compensation.

The District Level Committee, on 24-02-2020, rejected the petitioner’s claim, stating that the road had been constructed 25-30 years ago, with a 3-meter wide pakka road and 2.5-meter patri on both sides. The road was further widened between 2012-2015 without affecting any landowners’ tenure and did not require land acquisition.

The petitioner, however, claims that as per the revenue records, the chak road was only 2.5 meters wide, and the additional land utilized for road construction and widening is bhumidhari land. Therefore, the petitioner argues that compensation is due as the authorities cannot use her land without payment.

The State contended that since the road was constructed long before the petitioner purchased the land in 2019, and since no land acquisition was necessary for the widening, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation. The Standing Counsel also points out that the sale deed mentioned the existence of the road and that the road widening utilized the available patri on both sides, not requiring any additional land acquisition.

Analysis and Decision

The Court observed that the pakka road on the chak road was initially constructed by the Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department approximately 20 years ago, prior to the petitioner’s acquisition of the land, and it was done without the need for land acquisition. The road was 3 meters wide at that time. Subsequently, between 2011 and 2014, the road was further widened by PWD, and it was confirmed in the Tahsildar’s report that the petitioner’s land, specifically 0.033 hectares was affected due to this widening.

The Court noted that the land was used by the PWD for road widening without any formal acquisition process or payment of compensation to the petitioner. It was also acknowledged that neither the petitioner nor her predecessors had consented to the utilization of the land for this purpose.

The Court highlighted that the Right to Property is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which ensures that no person can be deprived of their property without due process of law. It emphasized that land cannot be acquired without payment of due compensation, as mandated by law. The Court further clarified that there is no concept of implied consent when utilizing a citizen’s land without following the prescribed legal procedure and without compensating the landowner. The acquisition of property for public purposes must be carried out with reasonable compensation in accordance with the law.

Taking note of various precedents¹, the Court observed that the Right to Property, though not a Fundamental Right, is a Constitutional Right that has been recognized as being on a par with human rights, which are inalienable. The Court reiterated that no person can be deprived of their property except in accordance with the law. Thus, in cases where the land of a citizen has been acquired by State authorities without proper legal procedures, such an action amounts to being without authority of law. Therefore, a person whose property has been utilized by the State without legal authority is entitled to due compensation in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable at the time of the property’s utilization.

Concerning the contention by the State that there are delay and latches on the part of the petitioner while approaching the Court, seeking compensation for her land utilized by the State, the Court relied on Vidya Devi v. State of H.P (2020) 2 SCC 569, wherein it was held that delay and latches cannot be raised by a continuing cause of action or if the circumstances shocks the judicial conscious of the court. It has further been observed that there is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s land was utilized by the State Authorities without following the proper legal procedure for acquisition, and without payment of any compensation. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as the rightful owner of the land, had not consented to its use for the widening of the road, and the authorities had not followed the requisite acquisition process.

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land used by the State Authorities. The compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Further, the Court remitted the matter to the District Level Committee to determine the compensation for the petitioner’s land, to the extent of 0.033 hectares, which was utilized without proper acquisition during the road widening process. The compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. The Court directed that the compensation, along with interest as stipulated under the Act, be paid to the petitioner by respondent 4 within a period of four weeks.

The Court, while disapproving of the action of the State Authorities in utilizing the petitioner’s land without authority of law, refrained from awarding a penalty against them. However, the Court cautioned the State Authorities that they must not utilize citizens’ land without proper authority or the necessary acquisition procedure. The Court warned that if such actions are found to be unlawful in the future, the authorities responsible for such illegal utilization of land will be held personally accountable. In such cases, the Court would be compelled to impose a heavy penalty, which would be recovered from the personal accounts of the responsible authorities.

[Kanyawati v. State of U.P, Writ – C No. 27598 of 2020, decided on 04-03-2025]

---

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vimlesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :– C.S.C

Buy Constitution of India  HERE