States and the centre cannot be allowed to have an indefinite right or overriding over the acquired properties of citizens, ruled the Supreme Court of India on November 24, 2020.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and S Ravindra Bhat said that though the right to properties is not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, the centre and states cannot be allowed to have an indefinite right over the acquired properties of the citizens.
The bench stated that the governments cannot continue to occupy citizens' properties after acquiring them on any pretext and permitting such an act would be "no less than condoning lawlessness".
The Case |
| The Supreme Court in its verdict directed the Centre to hand back the possession of over four acres of land in Byppanahalli, Bangalore within three months to the legal heirs of one B M Krishnamurthy after nearly 57 years of acquisition. The appeal was filed by B K Ravichandra and other appellants against Karnataka High Court's decision rejecting their claim to direct the Centre to vacate their lands. The apex court set aside the high court's verdict, saying that 33 years based upon cessation of the Union's legal possession is a long enough time, even in India, to be kept away from one's property. |
Supreme Court's Verdict: Key Highlights
•The Supreme Court in its ruling stated that it is no longer open to the state: in any of its forms to claim that the law - or the constitution can be ignored, or complied at its convenience.
•The top court directed the central government to pay Rs 75,000 as fine to the legal heirs of BM Krishnamurthy. The fine would be beside the arbitration award to be paid to them for the period, as they were deprived the ownership over their acquired plots.
•Further, Justice Bhat said the right to property is a "valuable right ensuring guaranteed freedoms and economic liberty".
•The ruling stated that to permit the state, whether the centre or state government to assert that it has an indefinite or overriding right to continue occupying one's property under whatever pretext, is no less than condoning lawlessness.
•The bench stated that the court's role is to act as the guarantor and protector of the people's liberties and their freedoms. The suit land was initially acquired by the centre in 1963.
•As per SC's ruling, the centre had admitted that it had acquired some parts of the suit lands and this was examined by the High Court on two occasions and each time the factual findings went against the centre and its occupation ceased to be lawful, with the lapse of the Requisitioning Act, in 1987.
•Yet, the centre had refused to hand back possession of the land by asserting that it has some manner of rights over it each time.
•The verdict read that the High Court, while noting that centre's claim had no merits nevertheless refused to issue any direction for the release of the suit lands. The Karnataka HC gave the rationale that the adjoining areas had been acquired and were used by the centre for defense purposes and it granted indefinite time to the centre to take steps to acquire the suit lands.
•The centre, however, had not chosen to do so these last 12 years, read the Supreme Court verdict.
Comments
All Comments (0)
Join the conversation