New Delhi : - The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the
Centre and state governments cannot have an “indefinite or overriding right” to
continue occupying citizens’ properties after acquiring them on any pretext and
permitting such an act would be “no less than condoning lawlessness”.
The verdict was delivered in the matter in
which the top court court directed the Centre to return within three months
over four acres land in Byppanahalli, Bangalore, to the legal heirs of one BM
Krishnamurthy nearly 57 years of their acquisition.
A bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and S
Ravindra Bhat said that though the right to properties was not a fundamental
right under the Constitution, but the states and the Centre cannot be allowed
to have indefinite right over the acquired properties of the citizens.
“It is, therefore, no longer open to the
state: in any of its forms (executive, state agencies, or legislature) to claim
that the law - or the constitution can be ignored, or complied at its
convenience. The decisions of this court, and the history of the right to
property show that though its pre-eminence as a fundamental right has been
undermined, nevertheless, the essence of the rule of law protects it,” the
bench said.
The top court also asked the Centre to
pay ? 75,000 as cost to the legal heirs of Krishnamurthy and the fine
would be besides the arbitration award to be paid to them for the period, they
were deprived the ownership over their acquired plots.
Referring to recent judgements, the verdict,
penned by Justice Bhat said the right to property is a “valuable right ensuring
guaranteed freedoms and economic liberty”.
“To permit the state: whether the Union or any
state government to assert that it has an indefinite or overriding right to
continue occupying one’s property (bereft of lawful sanction)- whatever be the
pretext, is no less than condoning lawlessness. The courts’ role is to act as
the guarantor and jealous protector of the people’s liberties: be they assured
through the freedoms, and the right to equality and religion or cultural rights
under Part III, or the right against deprivation, in any form, through any
process other than law.
“Any condonation by the court is a validation
of such unlawful executive behavior which it then can justify its conduct on
the anvil of some loftier purpose, at any future time- aptly described as a ‘‘loaded
weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible
claim of an urgent need.’’,” it said.
The top
court, in its judgement, dealt with the long legal history of the land which
was initially acquired in 1963 by the Centre.
The appeal
was filed by B K Ravichandra and others against the Karnataka High Court’s
decision rejecting their claim to direct the Centre to vacate their lands.
The judgement said that the Centre asserted
that it had acquired at least some parts of the suit lands and this was
examined by the High Court on two occasions, and in arbitration proceedings
under the Requisitioning Act.
“Each time, the factual findings went against
the Union. The Union’s occupation ceased to be lawful, with the lapse of the
Requisitioning Act, in 1987. Yet, it has implacably refused to hand back
possession, each time asserting that it has some manner of rights over it.
“The High Court, while noticing that the Union’s
claim had no merits (in both its appeal, which was dismissed, as well as in the
impugned judgment, disposing of the writ petition), nevertheless refused to
issue any direction for the release of the suit lands,” the verdict said.
The high court gave the rationale that the
adjoining areas had been acquired and were used by the Union for defense
purposes and it “granted indefinite time to the Union to take steps to acquire
the suit lands”, it said.
“The Union has not
chosen to do so these last 12 years. These facts paint a stark, even sordid
picture,” it said while allowing the appeals of the legal heirs of the land
owner.
Setting aside the high
court’s verdict, the top court
said 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 and directed
the Centre to hand back possession of the suit lands to the appellants, within
three months.